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.

CaIn Vs. Kentucky

Cain vs Kentucky

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Mar-23-1970
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/102601

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
397 U.S. 319
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cain

Respondent

Kentucky

Excerpt

cain v. kentucky - 397 u.s. 319 (1970) u.s. supreme court cain v. kentucky, 397 u.s. 319 (1970) cain v. kentucky no. 347 decided march 23, 1970 397 u.s. 319 appeal from the court of appeals of kentucky 437 s.w.2d 769, reversed. per curiam. the judgment is reversed. redrup v. new york, 386 u. s. 767 . mr. chief justice burger, dissenting. in my view, we should not inflexibly deny to each of the states the power to adopt and enforce its own standards as to obscenity and pornographic materials; states ought to be free to deal with varying conditions and problems in this area. i am unwilling to say that kentucky is without power to bar public showing of this film; therefore, i would affirm the judgment from which the appeal is taken. mr. justice harlan, dissenting. if this case involved obscenity regulation by the federal government, i would unhesitatingly reverse the conviction, for the reasons stated in my separate opinion in roth v. united states, 354 u. s. 476 , 354 u. s. 496 (1957). even in light of the much greater flexibility that i have always thought should be accorded to the states in this field, see, e.g., my dissenting opinion in jacobellis v. ohio, 378 u. s. 184 , 378 u. s. 203 (1964), suppression of this page 397 u. s. 320 particular film presents a borderline question. however, laying aside my own personal estimate of the film, i cannot say that kentucky has exceeded the constitutional speed limit in banning public showing of the film within its borders, and, accordingly, i vote to affirm the judgment below.

Full Judgment

Cain v. Kentucky - 397 U.S. 319 (1970)
U.S. Supreme Court Cain v. Kentucky, 397 U.S. 319 (1970)

Cain v. Kentucky

No. 347

Decided March 23, 1970

397 U.S. 319

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY

437 S.W.2d 769, reversed.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767 .

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, dissenting.

In my view, we should not inflexibly deny to each of the States the power to adopt and enforce its own standards as to obscenity and pornographic materials; States ought to be free to deal with varying conditions and problems in this area. I am unwilling to say that Kentucky is without power to bar public showing of this film; therefore, I would affirm the judgment from which the appeal is taken.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting.

If this case involved obscenity regulation by the Federal Government, I would unhesitatingly reverse the conviction, for the reasons stated in my separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 , 354 U. S. 496 (1957). Even in light of the much greater flexibility that I have always thought should be accorded to the States in this field, see, e.g., my dissenting opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184 , 378 U. S. 203 (1964), suppression of this

Page 397 U. S. 320

particular film presents a borderline question. However, laying aside my own personal estimate of the film, I cannot say that Kentucky has exceeded the constitutional speed limit in banning public showing of the film within its borders, and, accordingly, I vote to affirm the judgment below.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial