Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ward Vs. Illinois

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 09, 1977

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

72 entries 3 linked 69 unlinked
Show
  1. Memoirs Vs. Massachusetts US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1966
  2. Jacobellis Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1964
  3. New York Times Co. Vs. Sullivan US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1964
  4. U.S. 767 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Ward v. Illinois
    Search
  5. U.S. 767 (1977) Ward v. Illinois
    Search
  6. U.S. 767 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus Prior to the decision in Miller v. California
    Search
  7. Sado-masochistic materials are the kind of materials that may be proscribed by state law, Mishkin v. New
    Search
  8. obscenity criterion announced in Memoirs v. Massachusetts
    Search
  9. The principal issue in this case is the validity of the Illinois obscenity statute, considered in light of Miller v. California
    Search
  10. S. 769 community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin
    Search
  11. quoting Roth v. United
    Search
  12. value. We do not adopt as a constitutional standard the 'utterly without redeeming social value' test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts
    Search
  13. ultimate power of appellate courts to conduct an independent review of constitutional claims when necessary. See Kois v. Wisconsin
    Search
  14. Roth v. United
    Search
  15. U. S. 771 decision of a three-judge District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Eagle Books, Inc. v. Reinhard
    Search
  16. the Illinois statute long before Miller and prior to the sales for which Ward was prosecuted. In People v. Sikora
    Search
  17. People v. DeVilbiss
    Search
  18. Chicago v. Geraci
    Search
  19. and, as later pointed out in Hamling v. United
    Search
  20. extend constitutional protection to the kind of flagellatory materials that were among those held obscene in Mishkin v. New
    Search
  21. are not obscene when examined under the three-part test of Miller. This argument is also foreclosed by Mishkin v. New
    Search
  22. York, supra, which came down the same day as Memoirs v. Massachusetts
    Search
  23. U. S. 413 (1966), and which employed the obscenity criteria announced by the latter case. See Marks v. United
    Search
  24. As we see it, Illinois has not failed to comply with Miller, and its statute is not overbroad. People v. Ridens
    Search
  25. had provided the tests for obscenity found in Roth v. United
    Search
  26. S. 476 (1957), and that it subsequently had been construed to incorporate the tripartite standard found in Memoirs v. Massachusetts
    Search
  27. People v. Ridens
    Search
  28. to take cognizance of the specificity requirement set down in Miller. Furthermore, in a later case, People v. Gould
    Search
  29. Ill.2d 159, 324 N.E.2d 412 (1975), the Illinois Supreme Court quoted at length from Miller v. California
    Search
  30. not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.' ( Broadrick v. Oklahoma
    Search
  31. is surely as much as this Court did in its post- Miller construction of federal obscenity statutes. In Hamling v. United
    Search
  32. anal intercourse, lesbianism, and sadism and masochism, are vivid, intimately detailed, and explicit. ( Cf. One, Inc. v. Olesen
    Search
  33. U.S. 913, 914 (1973) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting in Miller v. United
    Search
  34. States and other cases), citing Miller v. California
    Search
  35. Ridens v. Illinois
    Search
  36. STEWART, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting. The decision in this case confirms the statement in Miller v. California
    Search
  37. Marks v. United
    Search
  38. of proscribed sexual conduct, it adds no protection to what the Constitution itself creates. For in Jenkins v. Georgia
    Search
  39. E.g., State v. Harding
    Search
  40. People v. Tabron
    Search
  41. ABC Interstate Theatres, Inc. v. State
    Search
  42. State v. Wedelstedt
    Search
  43. Commonwealth v. Horton
    Search
  44. This Court saved such a statute in Hamling v. United
    Search
  45. given as examples in Miller v. California
    Search
  46. and concluded that Illinois has failed to meet the specificity requirement of Miller. Eagle Books, Inc. v. Reinhard
    Search
  47. primary discussion of the State's obscenity statute in relation to the Miller specificity requirement, People v. Ridens
    Search
  48. Ridens II ), the Illinois Supreme Court relied on two cases to uphold the statute. In the first case, Grayned v. City
    Search
  49. The second case which the Ridens II court relied upon was its own decision in People v. Raby
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Ward v. Illinois
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial