Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided October 2, 1978No. 76-1650Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Mr. Justice Marshall,

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.*

I agree with the majority that the factual circumstances presented by appellant Ohralik’s conduct “pose dangers that the State has a right to prevent,” ante, at 449, and accordingly that he may constitutionally be disciplined by the disciplinary Board and the Ohio Supreme Court. I further agree that appellant Primus’ activity in advising a Medicaid patient who had been sterilized that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would be willing to represent her without fee in a lawsuit against the doctor and the hospital…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. ButtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. United Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. United Transportation Union v. State Bar of MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  5. In Re AdesDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1934

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API