Bridges v. California
E362106
Bridges v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded First Amendment protections by limiting the power of courts to punish out-of-court publications as contempt.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Bridges v. California canonical | 1 |
| Bridges v. State of California | 1 |
| Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3488663 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Bridges v. California Context triple: [United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court, includesCase, Bridges v. California]
-
A.
Whitney v. California
Whitney v. California was a 1927 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a conviction under a state criminal syndicalism law and became historically significant for Justice Brandeis’s influential concurrence on free speech before later being overruled.
-
B.
De Jonge v. Oregon
De Jonge v. Oregon is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus applies to the states.
-
C.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
D.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
-
E.
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Eisenstadt v. Baird is a landmark 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended the right to possess and use contraceptives to unmarried individuals, significantly advancing privacy and equal protection jurisprudence.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Bridges v. California Target entity description: Bridges v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded First Amendment protections by limiting the power of courts to punish out-of-court publications as contempt.
-
A.
Whitney v. California
Whitney v. California was a 1927 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a conviction under a state criminal syndicalism law and became historically significant for Justice Brandeis’s influential concurrence on free speech before later being overruled.
-
B.
De Jonge v. Oregon
De Jonge v. Oregon is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus applies to the states.
-
C.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
D.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
-
E.
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Eisenstadt v. Baird is a landmark 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended the right to possess and use contraceptives to unmarried individuals, significantly advancing privacy and equal protection jurisprudence.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
First Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ contempt of court case ⓘ freedom of speech case ⓘ |
| appliesLegalTest | clear and present danger test ⓘ |
| aroseFrom | contempt citations issued by California courts ⓘ |
| clarifiedDoctrine | clear and present danger standard in contempt context ⓘ |
| concernsAmendment | First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| concernsRight |
freedom of speech
ⓘ
freedom of the press ⓘ |
| hasAreaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
contempt of court ⓘ media law ⓘ |
| hasArgumentDate |
1941-10-13
ⓘ
1941-10-14 ⓘ |
| hasChiefJusticeAtDecision |
Harlan F. Stone
ⓘ
linked to:
Justice Harlan F. Stone
|
| hasCitation | 314 U.S. 252 ⓘ |
| hasCompanionCase |
Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court
ⓘ
linked to:
Bridges v. California
|
| hasCountry |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| hasCourt | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| hasDecisionDate | 1941-12-08 ⓘ |
| hasDecisionType | majority opinion ⓘ |
| hasDocketNumber | No. 451 ⓘ |
| hasFullCaseName |
Bridges v. State of California
ⓘ
linked to:
Bridges v. California
|
| hasHolding |
Out-of-court publications may not be punished as contempt unless they pose a clear and present danger to the administration of justice.
ⓘ
The First Amendment limits the power of courts to punish out-of-court publications as contempt. ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| hasLanguage | English ⓘ |
| hasMajorityAuthor | Hugo L. Black ⓘ |
| hasMajorityOpinionBy |
Justice Hugo Black
ⓘ
linked to:
Hugo L. Black
|
| hasPage | 252 ⓘ |
| hasParallelCitation |
159 A.L.R. 1346
ⓘ
62 S. Ct. 190 ⓘ 86 L. Ed. 192 ⓘ |
| hasPetitioner | Harry Bridges ⓘ |
| hasReporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| hasRespondent |
State of California
ⓘ
linked to:
California, United States
|
| hasTimePeriod | 1940s ⓘ |
| hasVolume | 314 ⓘ |
| involvesIssue |
judicial contempt power
ⓘ
limits on punishing criticism of pending cases ⓘ out-of-court publications ⓘ |
| involvesParty |
Harry Bridges
ⓘ
Los Angeles Times ⓘ |
| isLandmarkFor |
expansion of First Amendment protections
ⓘ
protection of criticism of the judiciary ⓘ |
| limitsPowerOf |
judges to punish criticism as contempt
ⓘ
state courts ⓘ |
| overturnedLowerCourt | Supreme Court of California ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Bridges v. California Description of subject: Bridges v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded First Amendment protections by limiting the power of courts to punish out-of-court publications as contempt.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: Bridges v. California
linked to: Bridges v. California