Supreme Court of the United States, 1967

Tannenbaum v. New York

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 12, 1967 · Warren, Brennan, York

388 U.S. 439; 87 S. Ct. 2107; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1300; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1089 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Osmond K. Fraenkel and Stanley Fleishman for appellant., Frank S. Hogan for appellee., Horace S. Manges for the American Book Publishers Council, Inc., as amicus curiae, in support of appellant.

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision. The 14 that cite it most often are listed here.

Adkins v. State (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1990)
Ginsberg v. New York (Supreme Court of the United States 1968)
Commonwealth v. Dell Publications, Inc. (Pa. 1967)
United States v. Petrosian (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review 1982)
In re DeNeueville (D.C. 1972)
Spencer v. Kemna (Supreme Court of the United States 1998)
Rodriguez-Martinez v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)
People v. Folk (New York Supreme Court 1981)
Baker v. State (Ga. 1978)
Calderon v. City of Buffalo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
People v. Stabile (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1969)
People v. Tannenbaum (N.Y. 1968)
Tannenbaum v. New York (Supreme Court of the United States 1967)
G. I. Distributors, Inc. v. New York (Supreme Court of the United States 1967)

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

388 U.S. 439 (1967)

TANNENBAUM
v.
NEW YORK.

No. 993.

Supreme Court of United States.

Decided June 12, 1967.APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.

Osmond K. Fraenkel and Stanley Fleishman for appellant.

Frank S. Hogan for appellee.

Horace S. Manges for the American Book Publishers Council, Inc., as amicus curiae, in support of appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed as moot.

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN would reverse the judgment of the lower court.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN, dissenting.

I dissent from the dismissal of this appeal as moot for the reasons stated in my dissent in Jacobs v. New York, ante, p. 431. In my view, the question presented by this case is extremely important and requires a decision on the merits by this Court. I would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissents. (See dissent set forth in Jacobs v. New York, ante, at 436.)

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