Film Follies, Inc v. Haas, 75-1119
| Decision Date | 07 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1119,75-1119 |
| Citation | 49 L.Ed.2d 368,426 U.S. 913,96 S.Ct. 2617 |
| Parties | FILM FOLLIES, INC. v. Harl HAAS, etc., et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Appellant brought this suit in the Circuit Court for Multnomah County, Ore., seeking a declaration that Oregon Laws 1973, c. 699, § 4, and Ore.Rev.Stat. § 167.060(10) violate the First and Fifth Amendments as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, and asking that enforcement of those statutes be enjoined. The Circuit Court dismissed appellant's complaint, and the Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon affirmed. Or.App., 539 P.2d 669 (1975). The Supreme Court of Oregon denied review.
Oregon Laws 1973, c. 699, § 4, provides in pertinent part:
'(1) A person commits the crime of disseminating obscene material if he knowingly makes, exhibits, sells, delivers or provides, or offers or agrees to make, exhibit, sell, deliver or provide, or has in his possession with intent to exhibit, sell, deliver or provide any obscene writing, picture, motion picture, films, slides, drawings or other visual reproduction.
'(2) As used in subsection (1) of this section, matter is obscene if:
'(a) It depicts or describes in a patently offensive manner sadomasochistic abuse or sexual conduct;
'(b) The average person applying contemporary state standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; and
'(c) Taken as a whole, it lacks a serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
'. . .'
Section 167.060(10) provides:
'Sexual conduct means human masturbation, sexual intercourse, or any touching of the genitals, public areas or buttocks of the human male or female, or the breasts of the female, whether alone or between members of the same or opposite sex or between humans and animals in an act of apparent sexual stimulation or gratification.'
It is my view that 'at least in the absence of distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure of unconsenting adults, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the State and Federal Governments from attempting wholly to supporess sexually oriented materials on the basis of their allegedly 'obscene' contents.' Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 113, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting). It is clear that, tested by that constitutional standard, Oregon Laws 1973, c. 699, § 4, as it incorporates the definition of sexual conduct in Ore.Rev.Stat. § 167.060(10), is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rubio v. Superior Court
...legislative determination to exclude aliens from jury service. See Perkins v. Smith, 370 F.Supp. 134 (Md.1974), aff'd, 426 U.S. 913, 96 S.Ct. 2616, 49 L.Ed.2d 368 (1976)." (Italics added.) (435 U.S. 291, 295-296, 98 S.Ct. 1067, 1070-1071, 55 L.Ed.2d We are not persuaded that a different res......
-
State v. Henry
...was again raised in Film Follies, Inc. v. Haas, 22 Or.App. 365, 539 P.2d 669, rev. den. (1975), appeal dismissed 426 U.S. 913, 96 S.Ct. 2617, 49 L.Ed.2d 368 (1976). The argument was summarily rejected on the basis of State v. Liles, supra. The last time we addressed the constitutionality of......
- Johnson v. Manson
- Cuyler v. Adams
-
Table of Cases
...723-24 Perkins, United States v., 116 U.S. 483, 6 S.Ct. 449, 29 L.Ed. 700 (1886), 809 Perkins v. Smith, 370 F.Supp. 134 (Md. 1974), aff'd, 426 U.S. 913 (1976), Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972), 1228, 1297 Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass......
-
The Equal Protection Clause
...441 U.S. 68 (1979). [330] Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432 (1982). [331] Perkins v. Smith, 370 F. Supp. 134 (Md. 1974), aff'd, 426 U.S. 913 [332] 441 U.S. 68, 76 (1979). [333] Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 647 (1973). [334] 403 U.S. 365, 370-73 (1971). [335] 458 U.S. 1, 13-17 (198......
-
Jawad B. Muaddi, the Alienable Elements of Citizenship: Can Market Reasoning Help Solve America's Immigration Puzzle?
...civil servants). 124 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1865(b)(1) (2000). 125 E.g., Perkins v. Smith, 370 F. Supp 134, 138 (D. Md. 1974), summarily aff'd, 426 U.S. 913 (1975) (holding that Maryland did not have to allow noncitizens to serve on juries). 126 Schuck, supra note 121, at 6. 127 See supra Part II.B......