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.

Walker Vs. Ohio

Walker vs Ohio

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1970
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/102706

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. 434
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Walker

Respondent

Ohio

Excerpt

walker v. ohio - 398 u.s. 434 (1970) u.s. supreme court walker v. ohio, 398 u.s. 434 (1970) walker v. ohio no. 1470 decided june 15 1970 398 u.s. 434 appeal from the supreme court of ohio reversed. per curiam. the judgment of the supreme court of ohio is reversed. redrup v. new york, 386 u. s. 767 (1967). mr. chief justice burger, dissenting. the trial court, endeavoring to apply the standards articulated by this court, held that the materials in question are obscene within the meaning of the relevant ohio statute. this conclusion rested on findings that the materials are patently offensive to contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; that, when taken as a whole, their dominant theme appeals to the prurient interest of the reader, and that they are utterly without redeeming social value. the ohio appellate courts declined to disturb that judgment. yet today the court reverses, citing only redrup. i dissent from such a summary disposition, not only for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in cain v. kentucky, 397 u. s. 319 (1970), but also because i find no justification, constitutional or otherwise, for this court's assuming the role of a supreme and unreviewable board of censorship for the 50 states, subjectively judging each piece of material brought before it without regard to the findings or conclusions of other courts, state or federal. that is not one of the purposes for which this court was established. mr. justice harlan, for reasons expressed in his page 398 u. s. 435 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), and memoirs v. massachusetts, 383 u. s. 413 , 383 u. s. 455 (1966), would leave the judgment of the state court undisturbed.

Full Judgment

Walker v. Ohio - 398 U.S. 434 (1970)
U.S. Supreme Court Walker v. Ohio, 398 U.S. 434 (1970)

Walker v. Ohio

No. 1470

Decided June 15 1970

398 U.S. 434

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Reversed.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767 (1967).

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, dissenting.

The trial court, endeavoring to apply the standards articulated by this Court, held that the materials in question are obscene within the meaning of the relevant Ohio statute. This conclusion rested on findings that the materials are patently offensive to contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; that, when taken as a whole, their dominant theme appeals to the prurient interest of the reader, and that they are utterly without redeeming social value. The Ohio appellate courts declined to disturb that judgment. Yet today the Court reverses, citing only Redrup.

I dissent from such a summary disposition, not only for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Cain v. Kentucky, 397 U. S. 319 (1970), but also because I find no justification, constitutional or otherwise, for this Court's assuming the role of a supreme and unreviewable board of censorship for the 50 States, subjectively judging each piece of material brought before it without regard to the findings or conclusions of other courts, state or federal. That is not one of the purposes for which this Court was established.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, for reasons expressed in his

Page 398 U. S. 435

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), and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413 , 383 U. S. 455 (1966), would leave the judgment of the state court undisturbed.

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

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial