Citation network
Smith Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 23, 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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 431 U.S. 291 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 431 U.S. 291 (1977) Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
the contemporary community standards for appeal to the prurient interest and patent offensiveness that under Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Cf. Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
conduct covered by the statute can be ascertained with sufficient ease to avoid due process pitfalls. Cf. Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
post, p. 431 U. S. 311 . MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court. In Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
and 725.6 (1973). In 1973, however, the Supreme Court of Iowa, in response to the standards enunciated in Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of any obscene or immoral drama, play, exhibition, or entertainment, was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. State v. WedelstedtSearch
-
to his case. And the 1976 legislation, of course, has no effect on petitioner's criminal liability. Cf. Marks v. UnitedSearch
-
for the trier of fact in a state obscenity prosecution were set out in Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
In Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
offensiveness is to be treated in the same way. 413 U.S. at 413 U. S. 26 , 413 U. S. 30 . See Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
does not mean, however, that juror discretion in this area is to go unchecked. Both in Hamling and in Jenkins v. GeorgiaSearch
-
See Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
Jenkins v. GeorgiaSearch
-
against which the jury decides the questions of appeal to prurient interest and patent offensiveness. In Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
On the contrary, we have indicated on several occasions that legislation of this kind is permissible. See Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
the State might add a geographic dimension to its regulation of obscenity through the device of zoning laws. Cf. Young v. AmericanSearch
-
offensive representations or descriptions of that specific hard core' sexual conduct given as examples in Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
be judged according to the average person in the community, rather than the most prudish or the most tolerant. Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
and not simply their own subjective reactions, or the reactions of a sensitive or of a callous minority. See Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Cf. Jenkins v. GeorgeSearch
-
U. S. 306 is always appropriate for the appellate court to review the sufficiency of the evidence. Cf. Ginzburg v. UnitedSearch
-
thesis were made in cases that followed Stanley v. GeorgiaSearch
-
home, the Court upheld the statute. A similar result was reached, in the face of similar argument, in United States v. OritoSearch
-
right to possess the material in the privacy of the home. 413 U.S. at 413 U. S. 141 . See also United States v. ReidelSearch
-
permits a federal prosecution will render the States' right meaningless. See Paris Adult Theatre I v. SlatonSearch
-
patent offensiveness. Those are questions for the jury to decide, in its traditional role as factfinder. United States v. DanleySearch
-
juries might reach different conclusions as to the same material does not render the statute unconstitutional. Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
Faches v. N.DSearch
-
was first used in Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
material to be judged merely by the effect of an isolated excerpt upon particularly susceptible persons. Regina v. HicklinSearch
-
to the position that a national community standard was not constitutionally mandated, compare Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. DaySearch
-
U. S. 478 , 370 U. S. 488 , and n. 10 (1962) (opinion of Harlan, J.), and Jacobellis v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 184 , 378 U. S. 195 (1964) (opinion of BRENNAN, J.), with Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
to this rule that has been recognized is for material aimed at a clearly defined deviant sexual group. Mishkin v. NewSearch
-
York, 383 U. S. 502 , 383 U. S. 508 (1966). See Paris Adult Theatre I v. SlatonSearch
-
Jacobellis v. OhioSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Court. In Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
State v. WedelstedtSearch
-
Cf. Marks v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial