Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York

GPTKB entity

Predicate	Object
gptkbp:instanceOf	gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court_case
gptkbp:arguedDate	October 16, 1996
gptkbp:citation	519 U.S. 357
gptkbp:concurringOpinionBy	gptkb:Justice_Clarence_Thomas gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia
gptkbp:country	gptkb:United_States
gptkbp:date	February 19, 1997
gptkbp:decidedBy	gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
gptkbp:dissentingOpinionBy	gptkb:Justice_Stephen_Breyer gptkb:Justice_John_Paul_Stevens gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy
gptkbp:docketNumber	95-1065
gptkbp:fullName	Paul Schenck and Dwight Saunders v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, et al.
gptkbp:heldBy	Fixed buffer zones around abortion clinics are constitutional, but floating buffer zones are not.
https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label	Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York
gptkbp:majorityOpinionBy	gptkb:Chief_Justice_William_Rehnquist
gptkbp:relatedTo	gptkb:Madsen_v._Women's_Health_Center,_Inc.
gptkbp:subject	gptkb:First_Amendment Freedom of speech Abortion clinic protests
gptkbp:bfsParent	gptkb:Hill_v._Colorado
gptkbp:bfsLayer	7