Citation network
Jacobellis Vs. Ohio
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 22, 1964
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 184 (1964) U.S. Supreme Court Jacobellis v. OhioSearch
-
U.S. 184 (1964) Jacobellis v. OhioSearch
-
Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
are within the ambit of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. WilsonSearch
-
U. S. 495 . But, in Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
States and Alberts v. CaliforniaSearch
-
that often separates obscenity from constitutionally protected expression. Bantam Books, Inc. v. SullivanSearch
-
Speiser v. RandallSearch
-
the question whether a particular work is obscene necessarily implicates an issue of constitutional law. See Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. DaySearch
-
to apply the applicable rules of law upon the basis of an independent review of the facts of each case. E.g., Watts v. IndianaSearch
-
true where rights have been asserted under the First Amendment guarantees of free expression. Thus in Pennekamp v. FloridaSearch
-
S. 487 . It follows that material dealing with sex in a manner that advocates ideas, Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp. v. RegentsSearch
-
without social importance. See Zeitlin v. ArneberghSearch
-
of expression can be squared with the guarantees of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. See Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. DaySearch
-
was first expressed by Judge Learned Hand in United States v. KennerleySearch
-
expression that is protected by the Federal Constitution. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN pointed out in Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. DaySearch
-
acceptable, which in others might be considered offensive to prevailing community standards of decency. Cf. Butler v. MichiganSearch
-
Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of the record made in the trial court, and we conclude that it is not obscene within the standards enunciated in Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
where the Court's single opinion applied the same standards to both a state and a federal conviction. Cf. Ker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
See Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp. v. RegentsSearch
-
Fiske v. KansasSearch
-
Hooven & Allison Co. v. EvattSearch
-
Niemotko v. MarylandSearch
-
Edwards v. SouthSearch
-
This is precisely what the Court did in Times Film Corp. v. CitySearch
-
One, Inc. v. OlesenSearch
-
and Sunshine Book Co. v. SummerfieldSearch
-
U. S. 372 . The obligation has been recognized by state courts as well. See, e.g., State v. HudsonSearch
-
Zeitlin v. ArneberghSearch
-
People v. RichmondSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial