U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1980

Sovereign News Company v. John T. Corrigan, Prosecuting Attorney

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided January 22, 1980 · Edwards, Keith, Per Curiam, Phillips

610 F.2d 428 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Timothy J. Armstrong, Asst. Pros. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, for John T. Corrigan., Bernard A. Berkman, Berkman, Gordon, Kancelbaum & Levy, Cleveland, Ohio, for Sovereign News Co., James A. Brogan, Asst. Prosecutor, Gary W. Crim, Dayton, Ohio, for Lee C. Falke., Thomas V. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, for amicus curiae Atty. Gen. of Ohio., Jack M. Schulman, Director of Law, City of Cleveland, Donald F. Black, Bruce A. Taylor, Bertsch, Edelman & Fludine Co., LPA, Cleveland, Ohio, for Cleveland Police Officers.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Sovereign News Co. v. Lee C. Falke, Roy Warner (6th Cir. 1982)
Yniguez v. Mofford (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 1990)
State v. Wolfe (Ohio Ct. App. 1987)
United States v. Tolczeki (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1985)
Balderaz v. Porter (District Court, S.D. Ohio 1983)
Spring v. Caldwell (District Court, S.D. Texas 1981)
Turoso v. Cleveland Municipal Court (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1980)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated appeals are from the decision of the district court reported at 448 F.Supp. 306, rendered October 31, 1977, holding parts of the Ohio obscenity statute, R.C. Ohio §§ 2907.01(F) and 2907.32, to be unconstitutionally overbroad and vague under Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973).

On December 7, 1978, the Supreme Court of Ohio rendered an opinion in State of Ohio v. Burgun, 56 Ohio St.2d 354, 384 N.E.2d 255 (1978), holding that the Ohio statute when construed to incorporate the guidelines of Miller v. California, is valid and constitutional. The first syllabus, prepared by the Supreme Court of Ohio, is as follows:

R. C. 2907.01(F), which sets forth the definition of “obscenity,” is neither unconstitutionally overbroad nor void for vagueness when it is authoritatively construed to incorporate the guidelines prescribed in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, [93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419].

56 Ohio St.2d at 354, 384 N.E.2d at 255.

Upon consideration of the briefs, oral arguments of counsel and the entire record, it is ORDERED that these cases be remanded to the district court for further consideration in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio in State of Ohio v. Burgun.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.