Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Bloss Vs. Dykema

Bloss vs Dykema

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jun-01-1970
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/102557

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
398 U.S. 278
Subject
Contract

Case Summary

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

Contract

Key legal issue
Contract

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bloss

Respondent

Dykema

Excerpt

bloss v. dykema - 398 u.s. 278 (1970) u.s. supreme court bloss v. dykema, 398 u.s. 278 (1970) bloss v. dykema no. 137 decided june 1, 1970 398 u.s. 278 on petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme court of michigan certiorari granted; judgment of the michigan court of appeals, 17 mich.app. 318, 169 n.w.2d 367, reversed. per curiam. the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the michigan court of appeals is reversed. redrup v. new york, 386 u. s. 767 . the chief justice and mr. justice white are of the opinion that certiorari should be denied. mr. justice marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. mr. justice harlan, dissenting. i would affirm the judgment of the michigan court of appeals upon principles heretofore often expressed by me. see my opinions in roth v. united states, 354 u. s. 476 , 354 u. s. 496 (1957); jacobellis v. ohio, 378 u. s. 184 , 378 u. s. 203 (1964); memoirs v. massachusetts, 383 u. s. 413 , 383 u. s. 455 (1966). from the standpoint of what i regard as the permissible exercise of state power in this field, the materials in this case fall far short of the "borderline" movie involved in cain v. kentucky (reversed summarily), 397 u. s. 319 (1970), see my dissent in that case, and i am at a loss to understand how these materials can be deemed to qualify for redrup treatment when, only a short time ago, the court declined to accord that treatment to the materials involved in spicer v. new york, cert. denied, 397 u.s. 1042.

Full Judgment

Bloss v. Dykema - 398 U.S. 278 (1970)
U.S. Supreme Court Bloss v. Dykema, 398 U.S. 278 (1970)

Bloss v. Dykema

No. 137

Decided June 1, 1970

398 U.S. 278

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME

COURT OF MICHIGAN

Certiorari granted; judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals, 17 Mich.App. 318, 169 N.W.2d 367, reversed.

PER CURIAM.

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

THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that certiorari should be denied.

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting.

I would affirm the judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals upon principles heretofore often expressed by me. See my opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 , 354 U. S. 496 (1957); Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184 , 378 U. S. 203 (1964); Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413 , 383 U. S. 455 (1966). From the standpoint of what I regard as the permissible exercise of state power in this field, the materials in this case fall far short of the "borderline" movie involved in Cain v. Kentucky (reversed summarily), 397 U. S. 319 (1970), see my dissent in that case, and I am at a loss to understand how these materials can be deemed to qualify for Redrup treatment when, only a short time ago, the Court declined to accord that treatment to the materials involved in Spicer v. New York, cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1042.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial