Brown v. Oklahoma
Cases that cite this one
32 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Conchito v. City of Tulsa (Okla. Crim. App. 1974)
- State v. Brahy (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974)
- Hawkins v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services (Md. 1992)
- Diehl v. State (Md. 1982)
- Joan Beckerman v. City of Tupelo, Mississippi, a Municipal Corporation (5th Cir. 1981)
- Lindros v. Governing Board of the Torrance Unified School District (Cal. 1973)
- Hess v. State (Ind. 1973)
- Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation (Supreme Court of the United States 1978)
- Jarrett v. Goldman (Portsmouth County Circuit Court 2005)
- Gatto v. County of Sonoma (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)
- Raymond Wayne Hill v. The City of Houston, Texas (5th Cir. 1986)
- Com. v. Ashcraft (Ky. Ct. App. 1985)
- Commonwealth v. Ashcraft (Ky. Ct. App. 1985)
- Joseph Lamar v. Fred Banks, Warden, Gwinnett County Correctional Institute (11th Cir. 1982)
- Thomas v. Board Of Education, Granville Central School District (2d Cir. 1979)
- Thomas v. Board of Education, Granville Central School District (2d Cir. 1979)
- Matter of Welfare of SLJ (Minn. 1978)
- Matter of Welfare of S. L. J. (Minn. 1978)
- Downs v. State (Md. 1976)
- Jefferson v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)
- State v. John W. (Me. 1980)
- Frolik v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1980)
- Commonwealth v. Duncan (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976)
- Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri (Supreme Court of the United States 1973)
- Brown v. State (Okla. Crim. App. 1972)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
92 S.Ct. 2507
Wilbert Montell BROWN
v.
State of OKLAHOMA.
No. 71-6535.
Supreme Court of the United States
June 26, 1972
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma for reconsideration in the light of Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971), and Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 92 S.Ct. 1103, 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972).
Mr. Justice POWELL, concurring in the result.
The statute involved in this case is considerably broader than the statute involved in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, 408 U.S. 901, 92 S.Ct. 2479, 33 L.Ed.2d 321, and it has not been given a narrowing construction by the Oklahoma courts. Moreover, the papers filed in this case indicate that the language for which appellant was prosecuted was used in a political meeting to which appellant had been invited to present the Black Panther viewpoint. In these circumstances language of the character charged might well have been anticipated by the audience.
These factors lead me to conclude that this case is significantly different from Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, supra. I therefore concur in the Court's disposition of this case.
Mr. Chief Justice BURGER, with whom Mr. Justice BLACKMUN and Mr. Justice REHNQUIST join, dissents; for dissenting opinion see 92 S.Ct. 2483.
Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BLACKMUN, join, dissents; for dissenting opinion see 92 S.Ct. 2484.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.