Grayned v. City of Rockford
Significance, Who Made The Noise?, Broad Laws And Specific Restrictions, The Lone Dissenter, Related Cases
City of Rockford
That he should not have been convicted for his participation in a demonstration that allegedly violated the city of Rockford's anti-picketing and antinoise ordinances because the ordinances were overbroad and should be struck down.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Sophia H. Hall
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
William E. Collins
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger, Thurgood Marshall (writing for the Court), Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
William O. Douglas
Date of Decision
26 June 1972
That the anti-picketing ordinance was overbroad and was therefore invalid; that the antinoise ordinance, which prohibited only noise that took place near a public school and might disrupt school activity, was valid; and that therefore Grayned's conviction under the anti-picketing ordinance was reversed while his conviction under the antinoise ordinance was upheld.
- Werhan, Keither. "The Supreme Court's public forum doctrine and the return of formalism." Cardozo Law Review, Winter 1986, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 335-437.
- Green v. County School Board - Historical Background, The Facts At Hand, The Supreme Court Reverses
- Gravel v. United States - Significance, Private Publication Not Protected, Impact
- Grayned v. City of Rockford - Significance
- Grayned v. City of Rockford - Who Made The Noise?
- Grayned v. City of Rockford - Broad Laws And Specific Restrictions
- Grayned v. City of Rockford - The Lone Dissenter
- Grayned v. City of Rockford - Related Cases
- Other Free Encyclopedias