Hoyt Vs. Minnesota

Hoyt vs Minnesota

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jun-29-1970

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/102528

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/102528
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Jun-29-1970
Case Number: 399 U.S. 524
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hoyt

Respondent

Minnesota

Excerpt

.....blackmun, with whom the chief justice and mr. justice harlan join, dissenting. i am not persuaded that the first and fourteenth amendments necessarily prescribe a national and uniform measure - rather than one capable of some flexibility and resting on concepts of reasonableness - of what each of our several states constitutionally may do to regulate obscene products within its borders. here a minnesota trial court (just as the ohio trial court did in walker v. ohio, 398 u.s. 434 (1970)), endeavored to apply standards articulated by this court in prior cases, and embodied in a precisely worded minnesota statute, and reached the conclusion that the materials in question were obscene within the meaning of that statutory definition. six of the seven justices of the supreme court of that state, citing redrup v. new york, 386 u.s. 767 (1967), and other decisions of this court, have identified the offending material "for what it is," have described it as dealing "with filth for the sake of filth," and have held it obscene as a matter of law. 286 minn. 92, 95, 174 n. w. 2d 700, 702. i cannot agree that the minnesota trial court and those six justices are so obviously misguided in their holding that page 399 u.s. 524, 525 they are to be summarily reversed on the authority of redrup. at this still, for me, unsettled stage in the development of state law of obscenity in the federal constitutional context i find myself generally in accord with the views expressed by mr. justice harlan in roth v. united states, 354 u.s. 476, 496 , 500-503 (1957); jacobellis v. ohio, 378 u.s. 184, 203 -204 (1964); and memoirs v. massachusetts, 383 u.s. 413, 455 , 458-460 (1966), and with those enunciated by the chief justice in cain v. kentucky, 397 u.s. 319 (1970), and in walker v. ohio, supra.

Full Judgment

HOYT v. MINNESOTA - 399 U.S. 524 (1970)
U.S. Supreme Court HOYT v. MINNESOTA, 399 U.S. 524 (1970) 399 U.S. 524

HOYT ET AL. v. MINNESOTA
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA
No. 1544.
Decided June 29, 1970

Certiorari granted; 286 Minn. 92, 174 N. W. 2d 700, reversed.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed, Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 .

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN join, dissenting.

I am not persuaded that the First and Fourteenth Amendments necessarily prescribe a national and uniform measure - rather than one capable of some flexibility and resting on concepts of reasonableness - of what each of our several States constitutionally may do to regulate obscene products within its borders.

Here a Minnesota trial court (just as the Ohio trial court did in Walker v. Ohio, 398 U.S. 434 (1970)), endeavored to apply standards articulated by this Court in prior cases, and embodied in a precisely worded Minnesota statute, and reached the conclusion that the materials in question were obscene within the meaning of that statutory definition. Six of the seven Justices of the Supreme Court of that State, citing Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 (1967), and other decisions of this Court, have identified the offending material "for what it is," have described it as dealing "with filth for the sake of filth," and have held it obscene as a matter of law. 286 Minn. 92, 95, 174 N. W. 2d 700, 702. I cannot agree that the Minnesota trial court and those six justices are so obviously misguided in their holding that

Page 399 U.S. 524, 525

they are to be summarily reversed on the authority of Redrup.

At this still, for me, unsettled stage in the development of state law of obscenity in the federal constitutional context I find myself generally in accord with the views expressed by MR. JUSTICE HARLAN in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496 , 500-503 (1957); Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 203 -204 (1964); and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455 , 458-460 (1966), and with those enunciated by THE CHIEF JUSTICE in Cain v. Kentucky, 397 U.S. 319 (1970), and in Walker v. Ohio, supra.

Same Court & Year US Supreme Court · 1970 Same Parties Hoyt vs Minnesota Same Subject Education