Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Splawn Vs. California

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 06, 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

44 entries 4 linked 40 unlinked
Show
  1. Henderson Vs. Kibbe US Supreme Court · May 16, 1977
  2. Sandquist Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1975
  3. Tobalina Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1974
  4. Blank Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1974
  5. U.S. 595 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Splawn v. California
    Search
  6. U.S. 595 (1977) Splawn v. California
    Search
  7. to convict him even though it might otherwise have found that the film was protected under the standards of Miller v. California
    Search
  8. and (2) violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws, and the fair warning requirement of Bouie v. Columbia
    Search
  9. Ginzburg v. United
    Search
  10. States, 383 U. S. 463 , 383 U. S. 470 . See also Hamling v. United
    Search
  11. People v. Noroff
    Search
  12. this Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded for consideration in light of our decision in Miller v. California
    Search
  13. After the State Supreme Court ruled that the statute satisfied the requirements articulated in Miller, see Bloom v. Municipal
    Search
  14. post facto laws and the requirement of fair warning in the construction of a criminal statute enunciated in Bouie v. City
    Search
  15. creation, promotion, or dissemination of material is relevant in determining whether the material is obscene. Hamling v. United
    Search
  16. is our power to upset state court convictions by reason of instructions given during the course of a trial. See Cupp v. Naughten
    Search
  17. his conviction both violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, See Calder v. Bull
    Search
  18. and failed to give him constitutionally fair warning of the prohibited conduct with which he was charged. Bouie v. Columbia
    Search
  19. ex post facto argument is based on his reading of an earlier decision of the Supreme Court of California, People v. Noroff
    Search
  20. would have had a tenable claim under the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. Bouie v. City
    Search
  21. Amendment protection of nonobscene matter, the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, or Bouie v. City
    Search
  22. MARSHALL join, dissenting. The California courts, in response to our remand for reconsideration in light of Miller v. California
    Search
  23. U.S. at 413 U. S. 47 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). See also Pendleton v. California
    Search
  24. by the First Amendment even though Page 431 U. S. 603 made for a commercial purpose. Virginia Pharmacy Bd v. Virginia
    Search
  25. U.S. at 425 U. S. 770 . See also Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro
    Search
  26. Miller v. California
    Search
  27. I must also record my dissent from the Court's disposition of petitioner's ex post facto argument. In People v. Noroff
    Search
  28. El Paso v. Simmons
    Search
  29. U.S. Supreme Court Splawn v. California
    Search
  30. of Miller v. California
    Search
  31. of Bouie v. Columbia
    Search
  32. Hamling v. United
    Search
  33. Bloom v. Municipal
    Search
  34. Bouie v. City
    Search
  35. See Cupp v. Naughten
    Search
  36. See Calder v. Bull
    Search
  37. Bouie v. Columbia
    Search
  38. of the Supreme Court of California, People v. Noroff
    Search
  39. the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. Bouie v. City
    Search
  40. Pendleton v. California
    Search
  41. Virginia Pharmacy Bd v. Virginia
    Search
  42. Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro
    Search
  43. In People v. Noroff
    Search
  44. Kaplan v. California
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial