RIDENS v. ILLINOIS, 421 U.S. 993 (1975)

U.S. Supreme Court

RIDENS v. ILLINOIS , 421 U.S. 993 (1975)

421 U.S. 993

Frank C. RIDENS et al.
v.
State of ILLINOIS et al.
No. 74-1003.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 27, 1975

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice MARSHALL join, dissenting.

Petitioners were convicted of selling allegedly obscene publications in violation of the Illinois Obscenity Statute, Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, c. 38, 11-20, and the obscenity ordinance of the city of Moline, Illinois. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed their convictions. 51 Ill.2d 410, 282 N.E. 2d 691 (1972). We granted the petition for certiorari and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

Page 421 U.S. 993 , 994

413 U.S. 912 (1973). On remand, the Illinois Supreme Court again affirmed the convictions.

For the reasons stated in my dissent from the remand of this case, 413 U.S. 912, and because the present judgment was rendered after Miller, I would grant the petition and reverse.*

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, being of the view that any state or federal ban on, or regulation of, obscenity is prohibited by the Constitution, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 508-514 (1957); Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 42-47 ( 1973); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 70-73 (1973), would grant certiorari and summarily reverse.

Footnotes

[Footnote *] Although four of us would grant and reverse, the Justices who join this opinion do not insist that the case be decided on the merits.




U.S. Supreme Court

RIDENS v. ILLINOIS , 421 U.S. 993 (1975)

421 U.S. 993

Frank C. RIDENS et al.
v.
State of ILLINOIS et al.
No. 74-1003.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 27, 1975

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice MARSHALL join, dissenting.

Petitioners were convicted of selling allegedly obscene publications in violation of the Illinois Obscenity Statute, Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, c. 38, 11-20, and the obscenity ordinance of the city of Moline, Illinois. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed their convictions. 51 Ill.2d 410, 282 N.E. 2d 691 (1972). We granted the petition for certiorari and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

Page 421 U.S. 993 , 994

413 U.S. 912 (1973). On remand, the Illinois Supreme Court again affirmed the convictions.

For the reasons stated in my dissent from the remand of this case, 413 U.S. 912, and because the present judgment was rendered after Miller, I would grant the petition and reverse.*

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, being of the view that any state or federal ban on, or regulation of, obscenity is prohibited by the Constitution, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 508-514 (1957); Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 42-47 ( 1973); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 70-73 (1973), would grant certiorari and summarily reverse.

Footnotes

[Footnote *] Although four of us would grant and reverse, the Justices who join this opinion do not insist that the case be decided on the merits.

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.