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 Butler,
dissenting:
I am of opinion that the challenged ordinance is not void on its face; that in principle it does not differ from the Boston ordinance, as applied and upheld by this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice White, in Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U. S. 43 , affirming the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, speaking through Mr. Justice Holmes, in Commonwealth v. Davis, 162 Mass. 510 ; 39 N. E. 113 , and that the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals should be reversed.