Freedom of Speech & Expression

GERENDE v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS OF BALTIMORE, 341 U.S. 56 (1951)

Argued:
April 09, 1951
Decided:
April 12, 1951
Decided by:
Vinson Court, 1950
Action:
Affirmed (includes modified). Petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition.

CASE INFO
OPINIONS
RELATED CASES
RESOURCES & COMMENTARY
CASE INFO

See Opinion tab for full case information.

OPINIONS
Concurring Opinion

Stanley Reed

Dissenting Opinion

No opinions found

341 U.S. 56 (1951)


GERENDE
v.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS OF BALTIMORE.


No. 577.

Supreme Court of United States.


Argued April 9, 1951.

Decided April 12, 1951.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.

I. Duke Avnet and William H. Murphy argued the cause for appellant. With them on the brief were Harold Buchman and Mitchell A. Dubow.

Hall Hammond, Attorney General of Maryland, and J. Edgar Harvey, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland the effect of which is to deny the appellant a place on the ballot for a municipal election in the City of Baltimore on the ground that she has refused to file an affidavit required by state law. Md. Laws 1949, c. 86, § 15. ___ Md. ___, 78 A. 2d 660. The scope of the state law was passed on in Shub v. Simpson, ___ Md. ___, 76 A. 2d 332. We read this decision to hold that to obtain a place on a Maryland ballot a candidate need only make oath that he is not a person who is engaged “in one way or another in the attempt *57 to overthrow the government by force or violence,” and that he is not knowingly a member of an organization engaged in such an attempt. ___ Md. at ___, 76 A. 2d at 338. At the bar of this Court the Attorney General of the State of Maryland declared that he would advise the proper authorities to accept an affidavit in these terms as satisfying in full the statutory requirement. Under these circumstances and with this understanding, the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE REED concurs in the result.

RELATED CASES
Freedom of Speech & Expression

CONNELL v. HIGGINBOTHAM et al., 403 U.S. 207 (1971)

Related Sub-Topics:
Loyalty and Security, Loyalty Oath
Freedom of Speech & Expression

BAIRD v. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA, 401 U.S. 1 (1971)

Related Sub-Topics:
Loyalty and Security, Loyalty Oath
Freedom of Speech & Expression

In re STOLAR, 401 U.S. 23 (1971)

Related Sub-Topics:
Loyalty and Security, Loyalty Oath
Freedom of Speech & Expression

ELFBRANDT v. RUSSELL et al., 384 U.S. 11 (1966)

Related Sub-Topics:
Loyalty and Security, Loyalty Oath
Freedom of Speech & Expression

BAGGETT et al. v. BULLITT et al., 377 U.S. 360 (1964)

Related Sub-Topics:
Loyalty and Security, Loyalty Oath
Freedom of Speech & Expression

In re ANASTAPLO, 366 U.S. 82 (1961)

Related Sub-Topics:
Loyalty and Security, Loyalty Oath
Freedom of Speech & Expression

NOSTRAND et al. v. LITTLE et al., 362 U.S. 474 (1960)

Related Sub-Topics:
Loyalty and Security, Loyalty Oath
Freedom of Speech & Expression

YATES et al. v. UNITED STATES, 354 U.S. 298 (1957)

Lower Court Ruling:
Overruled (in part)
Related Sub-Topic:
Loyalty and Security
Freedom of Speech & Expression

WIEMAN et al. v. UPDEGRAFF et al., 344 U.S. 183 (1952)

Related Sub-Topics:
Loyalty and Security, Loyalty Oath
Freedom of Speech & Expression

ADLER ET AL. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, 342 U.S. 485 (1952)

Lower Court Ruling:
Overruled
Related Sub-Topic:
Loyalty and Security
RESOURCES & COMMENTARY

Resources:

Coming soon!

Commentary:

Coming soon!

Topics: Freedom of Speech & Expression, Loyalty and Security, Loyalty Oath

Cite this page: APA Bluebook Chicago MLA

This library is a work in progress. See an error on this page? Let us know.