Walter v. Slaton, Nos. 26312

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
Writing for the CourtHAWES
Citation227 Ga. 676,182 S.E.2d 464
PartiesPatricia 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.
Decision Date13 May 1971
Docket Number26326,26313,Nos. 26312,26332,26316

Page 464

182 S.E.2d 464
227 Ga. 676
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.
Nos. 26312, 26313, 26316, 26326, 26332.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
May 13, 1971.
Rehearing Denied June 2, 1971.

Page 465

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.

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, for appellees.

HAWES, Justice.

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 hearing to determine the question of obscenity must first be had prior to seizure of the film and the destruction thereof. The prayers were for service on the defendants, the issuance of a rule nisi requiring the defendants to show cause on a day certain why the films descirbed in each case should not be declared obscene and subject to seizure; that the defendants be directed to have and to produce on the hearing of said matter the motion picture film involved; that the film be declared obscene and subject to seizure; that the defendants and each of them be temporarily and permanently enjoined from exhibiting the picture and that each of them be temporarily restrained and enjoined from destroying, altering, concealing or removing it from the jurisdiction of the court, and that the plaintiffs have such other and further

Page 466

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton 8212 1051, No. 71
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1973
    ...of the exhibition of obscene materials. See 1024 Peachtree Corp. v. Slaton, 228 Ga. 102, 184 S.E.2d 144 (1971); Walter v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 676, 182 S.E.2d 464 (1971); Evans Theatre Corp. v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 377, 180 S.E.2d 712 (1971). While this procedure is civil in nature, and does not dire......
  • State v. Aiuppa, No. 44264
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 1, 1974
    ...Ga. 377, 180 S.E.2d 712 (1971) (dealing with 'acts of sexual intercourse, natural, unnatural, bizzare, and violent'); Walter v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 676, 182 S.E.2d 464 (1971) ('actual sexual activity, both natural and unnatural,' including sexual intercourse, fellatio and cunnilingus); 1024 Pea......
  • Good v. State, No. 47169
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • December 4, 1972
    ...Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436, 77 S.Ct. 1325, 1 L.Ed.2d 1469; Metro Theater v. Slaton, 228 Ga. 102, 184 S.E.2d 144; Walter v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 676, 182 S.E.2d 464; Evans Theater Corp. v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 377, 180 S.E.2d 712, all of which involve condemnation or injunction The test of law......
  • Powell v. City of Anchorage, No. 2001
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • June 27, 1973
    ...of the exhibition of obscene materials. See 1024 Peachtree Corporation v. Slaton, 228 Ga. 102, 184 S.E.2d 144, (1971); Walter v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 676, 182 S.E.2d 464 (1971); Evans Theatre Corp. v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 377, 180 S.E.2d 712 (1971). While this procedure is civil in nature, and does n......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton 8212 1051, No. 71
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1973
    ...of the exhibition of obscene materials. See 1024 Peachtree Corp. v. Slaton, 228 Ga. 102, 184 S.E.2d 144 (1971); Walter v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 676, 182 S.E.2d 464 (1971); Evans Theatre Corp. v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 377, 180 S.E.2d 712 (1971). While this procedure is civil in nature, and does not dire......
  • State v. Aiuppa, No. 44264
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 1, 1974
    ...Ga. 377, 180 S.E.2d 712 (1971) (dealing with 'acts of sexual intercourse, natural, unnatural, bizzare, and violent'); Walter v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 676, 182 S.E.2d 464 (1971) ('actual sexual activity, both natural and unnatural,' including sexual intercourse, fellatio and cunnilingus); 1024 Pea......
  • Good v. State, No. 47169
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • December 4, 1972
    ...Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436, 77 S.Ct. 1325, 1 L.Ed.2d 1469; Metro Theater v. Slaton, 228 Ga. 102, 184 S.E.2d 144; Walter v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 676, 182 S.E.2d 464; Evans Theater Corp. v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 377, 180 S.E.2d 712, all of which involve condemnation or injunction The test of law......
  • Powell v. City of Anchorage, No. 2001
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alaska (US)
    • June 27, 1973
    ...of the exhibition of obscene materials. See 1024 Peachtree Corporation v. Slaton, 228 Ga. 102, 184 S.E.2d 144, (1971); Walter v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 676, 182 S.E.2d 464 (1971); Evans Theatre Corp. v. Slaton, 227 Ga. 377, 180 S.E.2d 712 (1971). While this procedure is civil in nature, and does n......
  • 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