Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Jim BAINES v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.

PER CURlAM.

Reversed and remanded on authority of Baines v. City of Birmingham, 403 U.S. 927, 91 S.Ct. 2246, 29 L.Ed.2d 706.

CATES, Judge (dissenting).

The Supreme Court of the United States on June 21, 1971 granted certiorari and vacated our prior judgment, 46 Ala. App. 267, 240 So.2d 689, with costs. In the same order the cause was remanded to us "for re-consideration in the light of * * * Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284, decided June 7, 1971."

We have so reconsidered the case and I am emphatically of the opinion that Cohen, supra, is in no wise dispositive of the appeal of instant concern. The majority opinion in Cohen, supra, was expressly careful not to deprive the States of the freedom to ban "fighting words" as illustrated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031.

I find no need to elaborate the clear distinction between Baines' conduct and words and Cohen's.

As applied here the city ordinance is not designed to stifle freedom of speech but rather to stifle incipient free-for-alls. In this I think Chaplinsky, supra, is apt authority to affirm. I trust that the City will apply to the Supreme Court of Alabama to review the instant order of the majority.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BAINES v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
(Sep 14, 1971)