# Haguer v. Committee for Industrial Organization

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 5, 1939 · 307 U.S. 496

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419053

## Case

- **Full name:** HAGUE, MAYOR, Et Al. v. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 5, 1939
- **Citations:** 307 U.S. 496; 4 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 501; 59 S. Ct. 954; 83 L. Ed. 1423; 1939 U.S. LEXIS 1067
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hughes
- **Judges:** Hughes, Butler, Roberts, Stone, McReynolds, Black
- **Cited by:** 1,793 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Walinsky v. Kennedy, 94 Misc. 2d 121 (1977).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419053

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that in federal civil rights cases punitive damages may be awarded even without an award of compensatory damages
- stating that parks “have immemorially been held in trust for use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.”
- affirming facial invalidation of ordinance that did not "make comfort or convenience in the use of streets or parks the standard of official action" but enabled the licensor "to refuse a permit on his mere opinion that such refusal [would] prevent 'riots, disturbances or disor…
- noting that parks, as well as streets, “have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been'used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public, questions”

## Opinion text

Mr. Chief Justice Hughes,
concurring:
With respect to the merits I agree with the opinion of Mr. Justice Roberts and in the affirmance of the judgment as modified. With respect to the point ,as to jurisdiction I agree with what is said in the opinion of Mr. Justice Roberts as to the right to discuss the National Labor Relations Act being a privilege of a citizen of the United States, but I am not satisfied that the record adequately supports the resting of jurisdiction upon that ground. As to that matter, I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Stone.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419053. Public record. Not legal advice.