It is the one case that will drive Americans into the voting booth more than abortion, education, guns, queers or voting itself – Miller v. California, the 1972 decision that technically legalized pornography. (Also see United States v. Reidel.) Yes, among all the sentient issues plaguing ...
Plaintiffs argue that this specification of reasons fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 657, as interpreted by this court in Mercer v. Perez (1968)68 Cal. 2d 104[65 Cal. Rptr. 315, 436 P.2d 315], and Scala v. Jerry Witt & Sons, Inc. (1970)3 Cal. 3d 359[90 ...
These conditions were established in the 1973 decision of the US Supreme Court case Miller v. California and served to define a new way of evaluating the obscenity of an item. Older methods for considering obscenity were often based on vague language and concerns of whether an item had any ...
Cohen, Daniel MarkSt.thomas L.revUnhappy Anniversary:Thirty Years since Miller v.California:the Legacy of the Supreme Court’’s Misjudgment on Obscenity. Cohen Daniel Mark. St.Thomas Law Review . 2002Unhappy Anniversary:Thirty Years since Miller v.California:the Legacy of the Supreme Court‘s ...
Supreme Court Decision about Community College Raises Issues for Public Body Boards Supreme Court Ends Mandatory Fair-Share Fees for Public Employees Supreme Court Oral Argument: Will a New Updated Test Supplant Tinker? Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Frustrated Cheerleader; But Schools Can, If They...
The Supreme Court rested its decision on a general principle derived from its ruling inGriggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (the Griggs Principle) that "an appeal, including an interlocutory appeal, 'divests the district court of its co...
…landmark court decision, reached inMillerv.California(1973), in which the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to provide a framework for defining obscenity by arguing that it should be based on “contemporary community standards.” In doing so, the court avoided describing specifically what those stan...
IP & Technology Law Trends,Trademarks,Supreme Court Citing the common law right to use one’s own name commercially and to prevent others from doing so, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 13, 2024 upheld the constitutionality of a challenged restriction on trademark registration. Section 2(c) of...
IP & Technology Law Trends,Trademarks,Supreme Court Citing the common law right to use one’s own name commercially and to prevent others from doing so, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 13, 2024 upheld the constitutionality of a challenged restriction on trademark registration. Section 2(c) of...
[Footnote 2/1] I dissent because, in my view, the California Supreme Court correctly interpreted the relevant constitutional language. InBurrows v. Superior Court,13 Cal. 3d 238, 529 P.2d 590 (1974), the question was whether bank statements or copies thereof relating to an accused's bank ...