FELTON v. CITY OF PENSACOLA, 390 U.S. 340 (1968)
U.S. Supreme Court
FELTON v. CITY OF PENSACOLA, 390 U.S. 340 (1968)
390 U.S. 340 FELTON ET AL. v. CITY OF PENSACOLA.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF
FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT. No. 934.
Decided March 11, 1968.
Certiorari granted; 200 So.2d 842, reversed.
Stanley Fleishman, Sam Rosenwein and Hugh W. Gibert for petitioners.
Dave Caton for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE would grant the petition and reverse because of the failure of the trial court to adhere to the standard for judging obscenity announced in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm the judgment of the state court upon the premises stated in his separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, and his dissenting opinion in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455.
U.S. Supreme Court
FELTON v. CITY OF PENSACOLA, 390 U.S. 340 (1968)
390 U.S. 340 FELTON ET AL. v. CITY OF PENSACOLA.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF
FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT. No. 934.
Decided March 11, 1968.
Certiorari granted; 200 So.2d 842, reversed.
Stanley Fleishman, Sam Rosenwein and Hugh W. Gibert for petitioners.
Dave Caton for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE would grant the petition and reverse because of the failure of the trial court to adhere to the standard for judging obscenity announced in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm the judgment of the state court upon the premises stated in his separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, and his dissenting opinion in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455.
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.
