HAROLD WASSERMAN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE ALHAMBRA JUDICIAL DISTRICT, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
HAROLD WASSERMAN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE ALHAMBRA JUDICIAL DISTRICT, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
449 F.2d 787
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1971)
Caution
Cited by 7 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:
Appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. As we have held that we are required to do, we have made our own “independent, de novo constitutional judgment * * * as to whether the [advertising leaflet] involved is constitutionally protected.” (Childs v. Oregon, 9 Cir., 1970, 431 F. 2d 272, 275). We agree with the District Judge that the leaflet was properly found by the California courts to fall within the three part definition of obscenity stated in Redrup v. New York, 1967, 386 U.S. 767, 770-771, 87 S.Ct. 1414, 18 L.Ed.2d 515, and in Cal.Penal Code § 311(a). See also Ginzburg v. United States, 1966, 383 U.S. 463, 86 S.Ct. 942, 16 L.Ed.2d 31.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maheu v. Hughes Tool Co., 569 F.2d 459 (9th Cir. 1977)
-
Court v. Wisconsin, 413 U.S. 911 (U.S. 1973)
-
United States v. Freeman B. Young, 465 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir. 1972)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1966)
- Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 (U.S. 1967)
- Childs v. State OF Or. & James C. Holzman, 431 F.2d 272 (9th Cir. 1970)