Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/398/278/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/398/278/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Bloss v. Dykema, 398 U.S. 278 (1970)
Bloss v. Dykema
No. 137
Decided June 1, 1970
398 U.S. 278
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF MICHIGAN
Certiorari granted; judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals, 17 Mich.App. 318, 169 N.W.2d 367, reversed.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that certiorari should be denied.
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting.
I would affirm the judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals upon principles heretofore often expressed by me. See my opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 354 U. S. 496 (1957); Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, 378 U. S. 203 (1964); Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 383 U. S. 455 (1966). From the standpoint of what I regard as the permissible exercise of state power in this field, the materials in this case fall far short of the "borderline" movie involved in Cain v. Kentucky (reversed summarily), 397 U. S. 319 (1970), see my dissent in that case, and I am at a loss to understand how these materials can be deemed to qualify for Redrup treatment when, only a short time ago, the Court declined to accord that treatment to the materials involved in Spicer v. New York, cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1042.
