Citation network
Marcus Vs. Search Warrant
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 19, 1961
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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
-
Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
Warrant - 367 U.S. 717 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961) Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
the constitutional protection to which it is entitled. Pp. 367 U. S. 731 -733. (c) Kingsley Books, Inc., v. BrownSearch
-
of the case on the merits. 364 U.S. 811. We hold that the appeal is properly here, see Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. BondurantSearch
-
press led by John Wilkes, author and editor of the North Briton. From this struggle came the great case of Entick v. CarringtonSearch
-
Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
At 1073. In Wilkes v. WoodSearch
-
Page 367 U. S. 730 obscene publications involved abuses inimical to protected expression. We held in Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
that a State's power to suppress obscenity is limited by the constitutional protections for free expression. In Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Page 367 U. S. 734 III The reliance of the Missouri Supreme Court upon Kingsley Books, Inc., v. BrownSearch
-
These procedures are separate from and in addition to the State's criminal statutes. See State v. MacSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and (3) whether the publications condemned are obscene under the test of Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
opposition in the American Colonies prior to the Revolution. Unlike the warrants of the North Briton affair and Entick v. CarringtonSearch
-
This holding applied also to the obscenity question raised under the Fourteenth Amendment in Alberts v. StateSearch
-
Lord Camden, in Entick v. CarringtonSearch
-
the publications were sold on newsstands distributing to the public. Compare Lord Camden's remark in Entick v. CarringtonSearch
-
Burke v. KingsleySearch
-
Books, Inc., 208 Misc. 150, 168-169, 142 N.Y.S.2d 735, 751. Cf. Near v. StateSearch
-
Commentaries, pp. 151-152. (Emphasis added.) Compare Butler, J., dissenting in Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
of persons having possession of them. See especially Entick v. CarringtonSearch
-
Frank v. StateSearch
-
applicable to the States to the full extent of its terms, just as it applies to the Federal Government. See Adamson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 68 Page 367 U. S. 739 (dissenting opinion). Only last Term, we said that, in Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
Elkins v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 364 U. S. 206 , 364 U. S. 213 . And in Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. BondurantSearch
-
of Entick v. CarringtonSearch
-
In Wilkes v. WoodSearch
-
Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
In Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
See State v. MacSearch
-
of Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
and Entick v. CarringtonSearch
-
Alberts v. StateSearch
-
Entick v. CarringtonSearch
-
Cf. Near v. StateSearch
-
Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
the Federal Government. See Adamson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Mapp v. OhioSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial