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.

Teal Vs. GeorgiA.

Teal vs GeorgiA.

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1978
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/104490

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
435 U.S. 989
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Teal

Respondent

GeorgiA.

Excerpt

.....are set out in my dissent there. see id., at 982 . for the reasons stated in that dissent, i would set this case for argument on the scienter and void-for-vagueness issues.* mr. justice stewart, dissenting. this case is in all relevant respects identical to sewell v. georgia, ante. for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in that case, i would reverse the judgment of the georgia court of appeals, or, alternatively, note probable jurisdiction and hear argument on the scienter issue. footnotes [ footnote * ] a review of the record in this case shows that, as in sewell v. georgia, ante, at 982, 98 s.ct. at 1636 (brennan, j., dissenting), the scienter requirement does not save ga.code 26-2101(c) from vagueness. although a police officer testified here that, in the course of viewing adult movies, he had seen some of the devices used to stimulate human genitals and, in addition, that he had seen a catalog which marketed the devices for such a use, there was no showing that appellant had seen or should have seen the indicated movies nor that appellant was familiar with any such catalog. indeed, the trial judge refused to admit the catalog into evidence because it had no relation to the constructive scienter issue. thus the conclusion that the seized devices were "useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs," here as in sewell, was reached solely from an inference to be drawn from the shape of the devices and the arresting officers' guesses and assumptions.

Full Judgment

TEAL v. GEORGIA. - 435 U.S. 989 (1978)
U.S. Supreme Court TEAL v. GEORGIA. , 435 U.S. 989 (1978)

435 U.S. 989

Warren TEAL
v.
State of GEORGIA
No. 77-790

Supreme Court of the United States

April 24, 1978

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice MARSHALL joins, dissenting.

Page 435 U.S. 989 , 990

In this Court, appellant presents constitutional questions identical to those in Sewell v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 982 , which are set out in my dissent there. See id., at 982 . For the reasons stated in that dissent, I would set this case for argument on the scienter and void-for-vagueness issues.*

Mr. Justice STEWART, dissenting.

This case is in all relevant respects identical to Sewell v. Georgia, ante. For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in that case, I would reverse the judgment of the Georgia Court of Appeals, or, alternatively, note probable jurisdiction and hear argument on the scienter issue. Footnotes

[ Footnote * ] A review of the record in this case shows that, as in Sewell v. Georgia, ante, at 982, 98 S.Ct. at 1636 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting), the scienter requirement does not save Ga.Code 26-2101(c) from vagueness. Although a police officer testified here that, in the course of viewing adult movies, he had seen some of the devices used to stimulate human genitals and, in addition, that he had seen a catalog which marketed the devices for such a use, there was no showing that appellant had seen or should have seen the indicated movies nor that appellant was familiar with any such catalog. Indeed, the trial judge refused to admit the catalog into evidence because it had no relation to the constructive scienter issue. Thus the conclusion that the seized devices were "useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs," here as in Sewell, was reached solely from an inference to be drawn from the shape of the devices and the arresting officers' guesses and assumptions.



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial