182 S.E.2d 464 (Ga. 1971), 26312, Walter v. Slaton
|Docket Nº:||26312, 26313, 26316, 26326, 26332.|
|Citation:||182 S.E.2d 464, 227 Ga. 676|
|Opinion Judge:||HAWES, Justice.|
|Party Name:||Patricia Reiley WALTER et al. v. Lewis R. SLATON, District Attorney et al. William WALTER et al. v. Lewis R. SLATON, District Attorney, et al. (three cases). Carl SANTAY v. Lewis R. SLATON, District Attorney, et al.|
|Attorney:||Glenn Zell, Atlanta, for appellants, Patricia Reiley Walter, William Walter and others. Stanley H. Nylen, Atlanta, Arthur Schwartz, Denver, Colo., for appellant, Carl Santay. Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Hinson McAuliffe, Sol., Tony H. Hight, Tom Moran, Assts. Sol. Gen., Frank Bowers, Atlanta, f...|
|Case Date:||May 13, 1971|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Georgia|
Rehearing Denied June 2, 1971.
Syllabus by the Court
1. The procedure followed in each of these cases was approved by this court in Evans Theatre Corp. v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 377, 180 S.E.2d 712, as against substantially the same objections as were made in these cases. The ex parte orders issued did not operate as prior restraints on the showing of the films but were merely the proper exercise by the court of its power to preserve its jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation until hearings could be had.
2. The ex parte restraining orders having been supplanted by temporary injunctions, questions respecting their validity are moot.
3. The evidence in each case authorized the issuance of a temporary injunction.
The ultimate question in each of these cases is the validity of an order passed in each case by a Judge of the Superior Court of Fulton County finding that a described 16 millimeter film, which had theretofore been exhibited and was being exhibited at the time by the defendants to the public, was hard core pornography and restraining further showing of such film by the defendants. Each case was commenced as a civil action by the District Attorney of the Superior Court of Fulton County jointly with the Solicitor of the Criminal Court of Fulton County. In each case the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants named therein were conducting a business of exhibiting motion picture films to members of the public; that they were in control and possession of the described motion picture film which they were exhibiting to the public on a fee basis; that said film 'constitutes[227 Ga. 677] a flagrant violation of Ga.Code § 26-2101 in that the sole and dominant theme of the motion picture film * * * considered as a whole, and applying contemporary standards, appeals to the prurient interest in sex and nudity, and that said motion picture film is utterly and absolutely without any redeeming social value whatsoever and transgresses beyond the customary limits of candor in describing and discussing sexual matters.' Then follows a brief description of the contents of the film in each case, and finally the complaint in each case alleges that under the law applied to such matters an adversary...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP