Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago

Decision Date27 November 1959
Docket NumberNo. 12717.,12717.
Citation272 F.2d 90
PartiesTIMES FILM CORPORATION, a New York corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, Richard J. Daley, its mayor, and Timothy J. O'Connor, its police commissioner, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Felix J. Bilgrey, New York City, Abner J. Mikva, Robert Plotkin, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.

John C. Melaniphy, Corp. Counsel, Robert J. Collins, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Chicago, Ill., (Sydney R. Drebin, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellee.

Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and SCHNACKENBERG and KNOCH, Circuit Judges.

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.

From a judgment for defendants, The City of Chicago, a municipal corporation, Richard J. Daley, its mayor, and Timothy J. O'Connor, its police commissioner, dismissing the plaintiff's cause, the latter has appealed.

By its complaint, plaintiff sought an order from the district court commanding defendants to forthwith issue to plaintiff the permit required by the city's ordinance, known as §§ 155-1 to 155-7 of the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago, alleging that it applied to O'Connor for a permit to exhibit a motion picture film entitled "Don Juan", but that he did not issue the permit on the ground that such a permit shall be granted only after such film had been produced at his office for examination; that an appeal to defendant Daley proved unsuccessful, and that, without a permit, plaintiff is prohibited from exhibiting said film under penalty of arrest and criminal prosecution, all in denial of plaintiff's rights under the first and fourteenth amendments to the constitution of the United States.

The defendants having answered the complaint, and the facts having been stipulated, the court entered the judgment from which the appeal was taken.

§ 155-1 of the ordinance provides:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to show or exhibit in a public place, or in a place where the public is admitted, anywhere in the city any picture * * * without first having secured a permit therefor from the commissioner of police.
* * * * * *
"Any person exhibiting any picture or series of pictures without a permit having been obtained therefor shall be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than one hundred dollars for each offense. * * *"
§ 155-4 of said ordinance reads:
"If a picture or series of pictures, for the showing or exhibition of which an application for a permit is made, is immoral or obscene, or portrays depravity, criminality, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens of any race, color, creed, or religion and exposes them to contempt, derision, or obloquy, or tends to produce a breach of the peace or riots, or purports to represent any hanging, lynching, or burning of a human being, it shall be the duty of the commissioner of police to refuse such permit; otherwise it shall be his duty to grant such permit.
* * * * * *"

In its complaint, plaintiff has limited its statement of the facts in an obvious attempt to so frame its case that the United States Supreme Court will be persuaded to rule upon the question of constitutionality of motion picture censorship, a course from which, according to Mr. Justice Harlan, Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents of U. of N. Y., 360 U.S. 684, 708, 79 S.Ct. 1362, 3 L.Ed.2d 1512, the Court has carefully abstained. In plaintiff's paring down of the facts, however, it has reduced the case to an abstract question of law. It is fundamental that, while the courts will adjudicate controversies, they will not announce opinions where concrete issues in actual cases are not set forth. In United Public Workers etc. v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 89, 67 S.Ct. 556, 564, 91 L.Ed. 754, the court said:

"As is well known the federal courts established pursuant to Article III of the Constitution do not render advisory opinions. For adjudication of constitutional issues, `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions\' are requisite. * * *"

The subject matter involved in this case is, according to the complaint, a moving picture film, which is described in no way except as "Don Juan". The nature of its contents either generally or specifically, is not revealed by the complaint and is not alleged to have been made known to defendants. The film itself was not tendered to the district court or this court and is not in the record. No one, except those in privity with plaintiff, knows whether the film Don Juan, for which the protection, first of this court, and eventually of the United States Supreme Court, is sought, is a picture of (for instance) a happy Sunday School picnic, a bullfight, or any one of the following (inter alia): (a) an immoral or obscene act, (b) exposure of the citizens of any race, color, creed or religion to contempt, derision or obloquy by attributing to them depravity, criminality or lack of virtue, (c) acts tending to produce a breach of the peace or riots, or (d) a hanging, lynching, or burning of a human being. With the physical object constituting the subject matter of this complaint hidden from the court, we are left to guess as to what our holding is to apply. If we grant the relief prayed, we will be sanctioning the public exhibition of we know not what. It might be a portrayal of a school of crime, which, for instance, teaches...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago 19 20, 1960
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1961
    ...finding that the case presented merely an abstract question of law since neither the film nor evidence of its content was submitted. 272 F.2d 90. The precise question at issue here never hav- ing been specifically decided by this Court, we granted certiorari, 1960, 362 U.S. 917, 80 S.Ct. 67......
  • Zenith International Film Corp. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILL.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • April 11, 1960
    ...this explains why the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago, D.C., 180 F.Supp. 843, affirmed 7 Cir., 272 F.2d 90; 80 S.Ct. It is generally accepted that freedom of speech is not absolute. As Justice Brandeis pointed out in Whitney v. People of State of ......
  • Gartner v. US Information Agency
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • October 12, 1989
    ...Id. 17 In Times Film Corp., exhibition of a film without prior approval also carried with it a monetary fine. Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago, 272 F.2d 90, 91 (7th Cir.1959), aff'd, 365 U.S. 43, 81 S.Ct. 391, 5 L.Ed.2d 403 18 The agency advises persons who examine agency materials that ......
  • NLRB v. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, ETC.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • March 22, 1960
    ...adjudicate upon a case which, first, was never presented to it for decision, and secondly, was an abstract case. See Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir., 272 F.2d 90. The scope of the proceedings before the Board was delineated by the amended charge and the complaint, both of which ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT