holding that in federal civil rights cases punitive damages may be awarded even without an award of compensatory damages
How later courts described this case
- 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 disorderly assemblage' "
- 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”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Questioned by Walinsky v. Kennedy, 94 Misc. 2d 121 (1977)
The foregoing, in addition to the increased emphasis placed on the right of privacy calls into question some of the broad sweeping language of the Hague and Thornhill cases.
Questioned by Johnson v. Harder, 438 F.2d 7 (1971)
We realize that questions may be raised as to whether the expansion of the Stone formula to include all welfare cases is justifiable while upholding the continuing validity of Hague.
The opinion
Mr. Justice McReynolds,
dissenting:
I am of opinion that the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals should be reversed" and the cause remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the bill. In the circumstances disclosed, I conclude that the District Court should have refused to interfere by injunction with the essential rights of the municipality to control its own parks and streets. Wise management of such intimate local affairs, generally at -least, is beyond the competency of federal courts, and essays in -that direction should be avoided.
*533 There was ample opportunity for respondents to assert their claims through an orderly proceeding in courts of the state empowered authoritatively to interpret her laws with final review here in respect of federal questions.