Citation network
Quantity of Books Vs. Kansas
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
-
U.S. 205 (1964) U.S. Supreme Court Quantity of Books v. KansasSearch
-
U.S. 205 (1964) A Quantity of Books v. KansasSearch
-
express requirements of the statute were thought by the Attorney General to be necessary under our decision in Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
This is the teaching of Kingsley Books, Inc. v. BrownSearch
-
Tenney v. LibertySearch
-
Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
abridgment of the right of the public in a free society to unobstructed circulation of onobscene books. Bantam Books v. SullivanSearch
-
Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Relying on these findings and this Court's holding in Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
concur in the judgment of reversal, but do not find it necessary to consider the procedural questions. Compare Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
wrongly decided. It is my belief, as stated in that dissent by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, in my concurring opinions in Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 147 , 361 U. S. 155 , and Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. RegentsSearch
-
U. S. 684 , 360 U. S. 690 , and in my dissent in Beauharnais v. IllinoisSearch
-
This case is not like Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
Page 378 U. S. 215 Kansas could constitutionally make their sale or distribution a criminal act. See Jacobellis v. OhioSearch
-
of obscenity the books involved in this case, I dissent on the basis of the views set out in my opinion in Jacobellis v. OhioSearch
-
I The two cases on which MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN's opinion almost entirely relies are Kingsley Books, Inc. v. BrownSearch
-
U. S. 436 , and Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
selling specific books may be a less stringent restraint on his freedom of expression than sending him to jail. Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
to be derogatory to a public officer, and imposed no direct restraint on materials not yet published. In Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
Times Film Corp. v. ChicagoSearch
-
of the reasons for the historic distrust in common law jurisprudence of any kind of censorship of writings, see Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
the policies of the various States and a high degree of communication across state lines. Cf. my opinion in Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 354 U. S. 476 , 354 U. S. 496 , and my dissenting opinion in Jacobellis v. OhioSearch
-
at the time of Kingsley Books, and the constitutional principle for which that case stands. At any rate, Tenney v. LibertySearch
-
Reasons such as these may explain in part why the Court in Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Quantity of Books v. KansasSearch
-
A Quantity of Books v. KansasSearch
-
of Kingsley Books, Inc. v. BrownSearch
-
Bantam Books v. SullivanSearch
-
Compare Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
and Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. RegentsSearch
-
Beauharnais v. IllinoisSearch
-
See Jacobellis v. OhioSearch
-
Jacobellis v. OhioSearch
-
and Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
In Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
Times Film Corp. v. ChicagoSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial