Breard v. Alexandria (341 U.S. 622)

U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 4, 1951 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)

Citation
341 U.S. 622 · 71 S. Ct. 920
Docket
No. 399
Argued
March 7, 1951
Decided
June 4, 1951
Term
October Term 1950
Vote
6–3
Majority author
Justice Reed
Issue area
Economic Activity
Disposition
Affirmed
Outcome
Petitioning party lost
Ideological direction
Conservative

How the Justices voted

Majority
Justice Minton, Justice Clark, Justice Burton, Justice R. H. Jackson, Justice Frankfurter, Justice Reed (wrote)
Dissenting
Chief Justice Vinson (wrote), Justice Douglas, Justice Black (wrote)

Opinion on Justia

Opinion excerpt

Mr. Justice Reed delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant here, Jack H. Breard, a regional representative of Keystone Readers Service, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, was arrested while going from door to door in the City of Alexandria, Louisiana, soliciting subscriptions for nationally known magazines. The arrest was solely on the ground that he had violated an ordinance because he had not obtained the prior consent of the owners of the residences solicited. Breard, a resident of Texas, was in charge of a crew of solicitors who go from house to house in the various cities and towns in the area under Breard’s management and solicit subscriptions for nationally known magazines and periodicals, including among others the Saturday Evening Post, Ladies’ Home Journal, Country Gentleman, Holiday, Newsweek, American Home, Cosmopolitan, Esquire, Pic, Parents, Today’s Woman and True. These solicitors spend only a few days in each city, depending upon its size. Keystone sends a card from its home office to the new subscribers acknowledging receipt of the subscription and thereafter the periodical is forwarded to the subscriber by the publisher in interstate commerce through the mails. The ordinance under which the arrest was made, so far as is here pertinent, reads as follows: “Section 1. Be it Ordained by the Council of the City of Alexandria, Louisiana, in legal session…

Excerpt of a 54,485-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.

← Back to the decisions database