I. M. AMUSEMENT CORP. v. OHIO, 389 U.S. 573 (1968)

U.S. Supreme Court

I. M. AMUSEMENT CORP. v. OHIO, 389 U.S. 573 (1968) 389 U.S. 573

I. M. AMUSEMENT CORP. v. OHIO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 260.
Decided January 15, 1968.

Reversed.

Allen Brown for appellant.

Melvin G. Rueger and Calvin W. Prem for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE concurs on the ground that evidence of contemporary community standards was excluded at trial.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm for the reasons set forth in his separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, 500-503, and in his dissenting opinion in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455.

BAXTER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, <a href="/cases/federal/us/389/573/case.html">389 U.S. 573</a> (1968) 389 U.S. 573 (1968) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BAXTER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 389 U.S. 573 (1968) 389 U.S. 573

BAXTER ET AL. v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
No. 858.
Decided January 15, 1968.

426 Pa. 240, 231 A.2d 151, appeal dismissed.

Jacob J. Kilimnik for appellants.

Frank J. Pfizenmayer and Levy Anderson for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Page 389 U.S. 573, 574

 


U.S. Supreme Court

I. M. AMUSEMENT CORP. v. OHIO, 389 U.S. 573 (1968) 389 U.S. 573

I. M. AMUSEMENT CORP. v. OHIO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 260.
Decided January 15, 1968.

Reversed.

Allen Brown for appellant.

Melvin G. Rueger and Calvin W. Prem for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE concurs on the ground that evidence of contemporary community standards was excluded at trial.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm for the reasons set forth in his separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, 500-503, and in his dissenting opinion in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455.

BAXTER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, <a href="/cases/federal/us/389/573/case.html"><a class="related-case" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/573/"><a class="related-case" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/573/">389 U.S. 573</a></a></a> (1968) 389 U.S. 573 (1968) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BAXTER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 389 U.S. 573 (1968) 389 U.S. 573

BAXTER ET AL. v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
No. 858.
Decided January 15, 1968.

426 Pa. 240, 231 A.2d 151, appeal dismissed.

Jacob J. Kilimnik for appellants.

Frank J. Pfizenmayer and Levy Anderson for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Page 389 U.S. 573, 574

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.