Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Pinkus Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 23, 1978

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

58 entries 4 linked 54 unlinked
Show
  1. Butler Vs. Michigan US Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1957
    Distinguished
  2. Splawn Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jun 06, 1977
  3. Ward Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Jun 09, 1977
  4. United States Vs. Orito US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1973
  5. Pinkus v. United
    Search
  6. States - 436 U.S. 293 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Pinkus v. United
    Search
  7. States, 436 U.S. 293 (1978) Pinkus v. United
    Search
  8. the Court of Appeals affirmed. Since the materials were mailed prior to 1973, he was tried under the standards of Roth v. United
    Search
  9. States, 354 U. S. 476 , and Memoirs v. Massachusetts
    Search
  10. U. S. 413 , rather than under those of Miller v. California
    Search
  11. Ginzburg v. United
    Search
  12. grounds that the instructions to the jury defining obscenity had been cast under the standards established in Miller v. California
    Search
  13. U. S. 15 (1973), although the offenses charged occurred in 1971, when the standards announced in Roth v. United
    Search
  14. States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957), and particularized in Memoirs v. Massachusetts
    Search
  15. Marks v. United
    Search
  16. the conviction in Roth, supra, where the instruction included children, and having intimated later in Ginzburg v. United
    Search
  17. standard of review, cogent arguments can be made that the inclusion of children was harmless error, see Hamling v. United
    Search
  18. ed.). Cf. Cupp v. Naughten
    Search
  19. Smith v. United
    Search
  20. than it would if it restricted its consideration to the effect of allegedly obscene materials on adults. Cf. Ginsberg v. New
    Search
  21. Emphasis added.) Petitioner's reliance on passages from Miller, 413 U.S. at 413 U. S. 33 , and Smith v. United
    Search
  22. person, rather than a particularly susceptible or sensitive person -- or indeed a totally insensitive one. See Roth v. United
    Search
  23. embodies a requirement that local, rather than national, standards should be applied. Hamling v. United
    Search
  24. be judged according to the average person in the community, rather than the most prudish or the most tolerant. Hamling v. United
    Search
  25. Miller v. California
    Search
  26. Roth v. United
    Search
  27. when judging the obscenity of materials, not in including them along with all others in the community. See Mishkin v. New
    Search
  28. York, 383 U. S. 502 , 383 U. S. 508 -509 (1966). Petitioner relies also on Hamling v. United
    Search
  29. pertaining to appeal to the average person when the evidence, as here, would support such a charge. See Hamling v. United
    Search
  30. expert testimony is not necessary. Ginzburg v. United
    Search
  31. Hamling v. United
    Search
  32. Jacobellis v. Ohio
    Search
  33. States, supra at 383 U. S. 467 , citing Roth v. United
    Search
  34. of whether materials are obscene, the methods of their creation, promotion, or dissemination are relevant. Splawn v. California
    Search
  35. have been foreseen in light of Mr. Justice Harlan's separate opinion in Roth and its companion case, Alberts v. California
    Search
  36. This rejected standard for judging obscenity was first articulated in The Queen v. Hicklin
    Search
  37. The validity of the concurrent sentence doctrine is not challenged here. See Benton v. Maryland
    Search
  38. this area of the law, I would vote to reverse this conviction with instructions to dismiss the indictment. See Marks v. United
    Search
  39. Millican v. United
    Search
  40. States, 418 U. S. 947 , 948 (1974) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting), quoting United States v. Orito
    Search
  41. U.S. Supreme Court Pinkus v. United
    Search
  42. of Roth v. United
    Search
  43. and Memoirs v. Massachusetts
    Search
  44. of Miller v. California
    Search
  45. Memoirs v. Massachusetts
    Search
  46. Marks v. United
    Search
  47. Cf. Cupp v. Naughten
    Search
  48. Cf. Ginsberg v. New
    Search
  49. and Smith v. United
    Search
  50. See Roth v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial