Teitel Film Corporation v. Cusack, No. 787

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; HARLAN; STEWART
Citation19 L.Ed.2d 966,390 U.S. 139,88 S.Ct. 754
Decision Date29 January 1968
Docket NumberNo. 787
PartiesTEITEL FILM CORPORATION et al. v. John F. CUSACK et al

390 U.S. 139
88 S.Ct. 754
19 L.Ed.2d 966
TEITEL FILM CORPORATION et al.

v.

John F. CUSACK et al.

No. 787.
Decided Jan. 29, 1968.

Elmer Gertz and Leon N. Miller, for appellants.

Raymond F. Simon and Marvin E. Aspen, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal seeks review of judgments of the Supreme Court of Illinois which affirmed orders of the Circuit Court of Cook County permanently enjoining the appellants from showing certain motion pictures in public places in the City of Chicago, 38 Ill.2d 53, 230 N.E.2d 241. The questions presented are whether the Chicago Motion Picture Censorship Ordinance is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, and whether the films involved are obscene.1

Page 140

The Chicago Motion Picture Censorship Ordinance prohibits the exhibition in any public place of 'any picture * * * without first having secured a permit therefor from the superintendent of police.' The Superintendent is required 'within three days of receipt' of films to 'inspect such * * * films * * * or cause them to be inspected by the Film Review Section * * * and within three days after such inspection' either to grant or deny the permit.2 If the permit is denied the exhibitor may within seven days seek review by the Motion Picture Appeal Board. The Appeals Board must review the film within 15 days of the request for review, and thereafter within 15 days afford the exhibitor, his agent or distributor a hearing. The Board must serve the applicant with written notice of its ruling within five days after close of the hearing. If the Board denies the permit, 'the Board, within ten days from the hearing, shall file with the Circuit Court of Cook County an action for an injunction against the showing of the film.' A Circuit Court Rule, General Order 3—3, promulgated May 26, 1965, provides that a 'complaint for injunction * * * shall be given priority over all other causes. The Court shall set the cause for hearing within five (5) days after the defendant has answered * * *.'3 However, neither the rule nor any

Page 141

statutory or other provision assures a prompt judicial decision of the question of the alleged obscenity of the film.

The Illinois Supreme Court held 'that the administration of the Chicago Motion Picture Ordinance violates no constitutional rights of the defendants.' 38 Ill.2d, at 63, 230 N.E.2d, at 247. We disagree. In Freedman v. State of Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58—59, 85 S.Ct. 734, 739, 13 L.Ed.2d 649, we held '* * * that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
102 practice notes
  • Illinois Citizens Committee for Broadcasting v. F. C. C., No. 73-1652
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • April 21, 1975
    ...also United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 369-75, 91 S.Ct. 1400, 28 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971); Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139, 88 S.Ct. 754, 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968). 30 Id. The dangers of an explicit preservation of the status quo pending judicial resolution are illust......
  • State ex rel. Andrews v. Chateau X, Inc., No. 23
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • January 4, 1979
    ...unprotected. Thus the standards of Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410, 417, 91 S.Ct. 423, 27 L.Ed.2d 498 (1971); Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139, 141-142, 88 S.Ct. 754, 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58-59, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965); and Kingsley Bo......
  • Kopp v. Fair Pol. Practices Com., No. S038571
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • November 30, 1995
    ...actions. (Freedman v. Maryland (1965) 380 U.S. 51, 85 [11 Cal.4th 630] S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649; Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack (1968) 390 U.S. 139, 141, 88 S.Ct. 754, 755-756, 19 L.Ed.2d 966; Blount v. Rizzi (1971) 400 U.S. 410, 91 S.Ct. 423, 27 L.Ed.2d 498.) The Thirty-Seven Photographs cou......
  • Citizens for Free Speech, LLC v. Cnty. of Alameda, No. C14–02513 CRB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • July 16, 2015
    ...D–4, LLC, 541 U.S. 774, 124 S.Ct. 2219, 159 L.Ed.2d 84 (2004) ; FW/PBS, 493 U.S. at 215, 110 S.Ct. 596 ; Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139, 88 S.Ct. 754, 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968) ; Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965) ; Gospel Missions of Am. v. Bennet......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
102 cases
  • Illinois Citizens Committee for Broadcasting v. F. C. C., No. 73-1652
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • April 21, 1975
    ...also United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 369-75, 91 S.Ct. 1400, 28 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971); Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139, 88 S.Ct. 754, 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968). 30 Id. The dangers of an explicit preservation of the status quo pending judicial resolution are illust......
  • State ex rel. Andrews v. Chateau X, Inc., No. 23
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • January 4, 1979
    ...unprotected. Thus the standards of Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410, 417, 91 S.Ct. 423, 27 L.Ed.2d 498 (1971); Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139, 141-142, 88 S.Ct. 754, 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58-59, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965); and Kingsley Bo......
  • Kopp v. Fair Pol. Practices Com., No. S038571
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • November 30, 1995
    ...actions. (Freedman v. Maryland (1965) 380 U.S. 51, 85 [11 Cal.4th 630] S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649; Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack (1968) 390 U.S. 139, 141, 88 S.Ct. 754, 755-756, 19 L.Ed.2d 966; Blount v. Rizzi (1971) 400 U.S. 410, 91 S.Ct. 423, 27 L.Ed.2d 498.) The Thirty-Seven Photographs cou......
  • Citizens for Free Speech, LLC v. Cnty. of Alameda, No. C14–02513 CRB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • July 16, 2015
    ...D–4, LLC, 541 U.S. 774, 124 S.Ct. 2219, 159 L.Ed.2d 84 (2004) ; FW/PBS, 493 U.S. at 215, 110 S.Ct. 596 ; Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139, 88 S.Ct. 754, 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968) ; Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965) ; Gospel Missions of Am. v. Bennet......
  • 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