Skip to content


i. M. Amusement Corp. Vs. Ohio - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number389 U.S. 573
Appellanti. M. Amusement Corp.
RespondentOhio
Excerpt:
.....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, 389 u.s. 573 (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. .....
Judgment:
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="/102125"> 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




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //