GROVE PRESS, v. MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF CENSORS, 401 U.S. 480 (1971)
Subscribe to Cases that cite v. MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF CENSORS, 401 U.S. 480
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/401/480/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/401/480/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
GROVE PRESS, v. MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF CENSORS, 401 U.S. 480 (1971)
401 U.S. 480 GROVE PRESS, INC., ET AL. v. MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF CENSORS
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
No. 63.
Argued November 10, 1970
Decided March 8, 1971
255 Md. 297, 258 A. 2d 240, affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Edward de Grazia argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were Nathan Lewin, Arnold M. Weiner, and Alan M. Dershowitz.
Francis B. Burch, Attorney General of Maryland, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief was Thomas N. Biddison, Jr., Assistant Attorney General.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Felix J. Bilgrey for the International Film Importers & Distributors of America, Inc.; by Louis Nizer for the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.; by Leon Friedman and Lester Pollack for the National Association of Theater Owners, Inc., and by Stanley Fleishman and Sam Rosenwein for the Adult Film Association of America, Inc.
Francis J. Rudolph filed a brief for Morality in Media, Inc., as amicus curiae, urging affirmance.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.