Citation network
Memoirs Vs. Massachusetts
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 21, 1966
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
-
U.S. 413 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Memoirs v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Under the test in Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
justify the conclusion that the publication and distribution of Memoirs was not constitutionally protected. Ginzburg v. UnitedSearch
-
MR. JUSTICE STEWART concur in the reversal for the reasons given in their respective dissenting opinions in Ginzburg v. UnitedSearch
-
States, post, p. 383 U. S. 476 and p. 383 U. S. 497 and Mishkin v. NewSearch
-
Attorney General v. TheSearch
-
sole question before the state courts was whether Memoirs satisfies the test of obscenity established in Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
with the requirement that a book be utterly devoid of social value, but rather that, as we elaborate in Ginzburg v. UnitedSearch
-
MR. JUSTICE STEWART concur in the reversal for the reasons stated in their respective dissenting opinions in Ginzburg v. UnitedSearch
-
The record in this case is thus significantly different from the records in Ginzburg v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
States, post, p. 383 U. S. 463 , and Mishkin v. NewSearch
-
its prurient appeal, for a work cannot be proscribed unless it is 'utterly' without social importance. See Zeitlin v. ArneberghSearch
-
U. S. 184 , 378 U. S. 191 (opinion of BRENNAN, J.). Followed in, e.g., People v. BruceSearch
-
Trans-Lux Distributing Corp. v. MarylandSearch
-
intimate no view concerning the constitutionality of such a limited declaration regarding Memoirs. Cf. Jacobellis v. OhioSearch
-
N.E.2d 403. Four of the seven judges of the New York Court of Appeals conclude that it is not obscene. Larkin v. Putnam'sSearch
-
at common law is unclear. It is generally agreed that the first reported case involving obscene conduct is The King v. SirSearch
-
First Amendment, we would not be justified in assuming that the Amendment left the common law unscathed. In Bridges v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Grosjean v. AmericanSearch
-
without merit. We faced the difficult questions the First Amendment poses with regard to libel in New York Times v. SullivanSearch
-
to pass on the value, the propriety, or the morality of a particular expression. Cf. Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp. v. RegentsSearch
-
Page 383 U. S. 433 Whatever may be the reach of the power to regulate conduct, I stand by my view in Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
as the first recorded suppression of a literary work in this country on grounds of obscenity. See Commonwealth v. HolmesSearch
-
The Queen v. ReadSearch
-
Dominus Rex v. CurlSearch
-
Rex v. TilkesSearch
-
The first reported decision involving the publication of obscene literature does not come until 1821. See Commonwealth v. HolmesSearch
-
And see the summary of Dr. Jahoda's studies prepared by her for Judge Frank, reprinted in United States v. RothSearch
-
Commonwealth v. GordonSearch
-
there is no majority opinion in this case, there are three Justices who import a new test into that laid down in Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
At 354 U. S. 485 (quoting Chaplinsky v. NewSearch
-
test been suggested, much less expounded. My Brother HARLAN, in Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. DaySearch
-
test. The first reference to such a test was made by my Brother BRENNAN in Jacobellis v. OhioSearch
-
rule of law which states obscenity is suppressible, but well written obscenity is not.' Mr. Justice Scileppi in People v. FritchSearch
-
pp. 141-166. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting. The central development that emerges from the aftermath of Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
as Roth has been expounded in this case, in Ginzburg v. UnitedSearch
-
States, post, p. 383 U. S. 463 , and in Mishkin v. NewSearch
-
Gitlow v. NewSearch
-
used in opinions to delimit the protection of free speech -- the gravity of the evil being regulated, see Schneider v. StateSearch
-
is the danger, Schenck v. PageSearch
-
United States v. DennisSearch
-
may and do depend on the particular context in which power is exercised. When, for example, the Court in Beauharnais v. IllinoisSearch
-
statute applying to such communications as Congress might otherwise regulate under the commerce power. See also Kovacs v. CooperSearch
-
STEWART, J., in Jacobellis v. OhioSearch
-
forth in this opinion, supplementing what I have earlier said in my opinions in Roth, supra, Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. DaySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial