Citation network
Heller Vs. New York
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 25, 1973
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
-
Heller v. NewSearch
-
York - 413 U.S. 483 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Heller v. NewSearch
-
York, 413 U.S. 483 (1973) Heller v. NewSearch
-
to afford the state courts an opportunity to reconsider petitioner's substantive challenges in light of Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
ante, p. 413 U. S. 15 , and Paris Adult Theatre I v. SlatonSearch
-
film and affirmed petitioner's conviction. The Court of Appeals, relying on this Court's opinion in Lee Art Theatre v. VirginiaSearch
-
Astro Cinema Corp. v. MackellSearch
-
F.2d 293 (CA2 1970), and Bethview Amusement Corp. v. CahnSearch
-
to a prior adversary hearing applicable to all cases where allegedly obscene material is seized. See Times Film Corp. v. ChicagoSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
is seized, pursuant to a warrant, to preserve the material as evidence in a criminal prosecution. In Lee Art Theatre v. VirginiaSearch
-
See Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
Warrant, 367 U. S. 717 , 367 U. S. 731 -733 (1961). Cf. Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
Giordenello v. UnitedSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 333 U. S. 10 , 333 U. S. 14 -15 (1948). In United States v. Thirty-sevenSearch
-
Photographs, 402 U. S. 363 (1971), and Freedman v. MarylandSearch
-
United States v. Thirty-sevenSearch
-
Page 413 U. S. 490 supra at 380 U. S. 57 -59. See Blount v. RizziSearch
-
even making the doubtful assumption that no other copies of the film existed. Cf. United States v. Thirty-sevenSearch
-
those delays caused by the choice of the defendant. See United States v. Thirty-sevenSearch
-
petitioner's decision to waive pretrial motions and reserve the obscenity issue for trial. Cf. Kingsley Books, Inc. v. BrownSearch
-
U.S. at 354 U. S. 439 . Petitioner's reliance on the Court's decisions in A Quantity of Books v. KansasSearch
-
U. S. 205 (1964), and Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
A Quantity of Books v. KansasSearch
-
New York Times Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 403 U. S. 713 , Page 413 U. S. 492 403 U. S. 714 (1971), quoting Bantam Books, Inc. v. SullivanSearch
-
Carroll v. PrincessSearch
-
Anne, 393 U. S. 175 , 393 U. S. 181 (1968). See Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
hearing prior to a seizure by lawful warrant would materially increase First Amendment protection. Cf. Carroll v. PrincessSearch
-
that films shown only to consenting adults in private have a particular claim to constitutional protection. In Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
fell short of constitutional requirements demanding necessary sensitivity to freedom of expression. See Freedman v. MarylandSearch
-
Id. at 367 U. S. 721 n. 6. In A Quantity of Books v. KansasSearch
-
In Mishkin v. NewSearch
-
See United States v. Thirty-sevenSearch
-
violations of Fourth Amendment standards would require that the seized material be excluded from evidence. See Roaden v. KentuckySearch
-
Lee Art Theatre v. VirginiaSearch
-
U.S. at 392 U. S. 637 . Cf. Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
underlying obscenity statute violates the First Amendment for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinions in Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Heller v. NewSearch
-
of Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
and Paris Adult Theatre I v. SlatonSearch
-
and Bethview Amusement Corp. v. CahnSearch
-
See Times Film Corp. v. ChicagoSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial