Citation network
United States Vs. Orito
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 21, 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
-
U.S. 139 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. OritoSearch
-
U.S. 139 (1973) United States v. OritoSearch
-
overbroad for failing to distinguish between public and nonpublic transportation. Appellee relies on Stanley v. GeorgiaSearch
-
case is remanded to the District Court for reconsideration of the sufficiency of the indictment in light of Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
transportation of obscene material. The District Court interpreted this Court's decisions in Griswold v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Redrup v. NewSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and Stanley v. GeorgiaSearch
-
a), 84 Stat. 1890. See United States v. SpectorSearch
-
it. We have rejected that reasoning. This case was decided by the District Court before our decisions in United States v. Thirty-sevenSearch
-
Photographs, 402 U. S. 363 (1971), and United States v. ReidelSearch
-
United States v. Thirty-sevenSearch
-
Photographs, supra, at 402 U. S. 36 (opinion of WHITE, J.). United States v. ReidelSearch
-
supra, at 402 U. S. 354 -356. See United States v. ZacherSearch
-
F.Supp. 883, 885-886 (ED Wis.1971). But cf. United States v. Thirty-sevenSearch
-
special privacy rights such as those of marriage, procreation, motherhood, childrearing, and education. See Eisenstadt v. BairdSearch
-
Skinner v. OklahomaSearch
-
Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
But viewing obscene films in a commercial theater open to the adult public, see Paris Adult Theatre I v. SlatonSearch
-
Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 484 -485 (1957). Given (a) that obscene material is not protected under the First Amendment, Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
I, ante at 413 U. S. 57 -64, and (c) that no constitutionally protected privacy is involved, United States v. Thirty-sevenSearch
-
or to the public and the harm that exposure Page 413 U. S. 144 could cause. See Paris Adult Theatre I v. SlatonSearch
-
ante at 413 U. S. 57 -63. See also United States v. AlpersSearch
-
Brooks v. UnitedSearch
-
the exercise of which the Constitution places no restriction and over which the courts are given no control. McCray v. UnitedSearch
-
Sonzinsky v. UnitedSearch
-
no determination of the obscenity of the material involved has been made. Today, for the first time since Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
Court for distinguishing obscene material, unprotected by the First Amendment, from protected free speech. See Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
therefore vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration of the sufficiency of the indictment in light of Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
entering a place of public accommodation, does not involve the privacies associated with the home. See United States v. Thirty-sevenSearch
-
Miller v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. MelvinSearch
-
and thus demoralize, through a spread of the gambling habit, individuals who were likely to purchase. . . . In Hoke v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 227 U. S. 308 and Caminetti v. UnitedSearch
-
use of interstate commerce to facilitate prostitution or concubinage, and other forms of immorality. . . . In Weber v. FreedSearch
-
Books v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 432 , 267 U. S. 436 -437 (1925). MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. We held in Stanley v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. OritoSearch
-
of Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
See United States v. SpectorSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial