Rabeck v. New York
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Mandel v. Municipal Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1969)
- People v. Owens (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)
- State v. Seigel (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1975)
- State v. Seigel (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1975)
- News Company v. Casado (10th Cir. 1983)
- Rushia v. Town of Ashburnham (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1983)
- M.S. News Co. v. Casado (10th Cir. 1983)
- American Booksellers Ass'n v. McAuliffe (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1981)
- Trombetta v. Atlantic City (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1981)
- Hillsboro News Co. v. City of Tampa (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1978)
- Attwood v. Purcell (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 1975)
- Attwood v. Purcell (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 1975)
- United States v. Stewart Hymans and Mark Paynter (10th Cir. 1972)
- Astro Cinema Corp. v. Mackell (District Court, E.D. New York 1969)
- Calderon v. City of Buffalo (New York Supreme Court 1977)
- Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (Supreme Court of the United States 1975)
- People v. Tannenbaum (N.Y. 1968)
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
RABECK
v.
NEW YORK.
Supreme Court of United States.
Stanley Fleishman, Osmond K. Fraenkel, and Sam Rosenwein for appellant.
Isidore Dollinger and Daniel J. Sullivan for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, in seeking reversal of his conviction for selling "girlie" magazines to a minor under 18 years of age in violation of former § 484-i, New York Penal Law,[*] argues among other grounds that the statute is impermissibly vague. We agree. While we rejected a like claim as to § 484-h in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, § 484-i in part prohibited the sale of "any . . . magazines . . . which would appeal to the lust of persons under the age of eighteen years or to their curiosity as to sex or to the anatomical differences between the sexes . . . ." That standard in our view is unconstitutionally vague. "Nor is it an answer to an argument that a particular regulation of expression is vague to say that it was adopted for the salutary purpose of protecting children. The permissible extent of vagueness is *463 not directly proportional to, or a function of, the extent of the power to regulate or control expression with respect to children." Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 390 U. S. 676, 689.
Reversed.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurs, would reverse for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 650.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm the judgment of the state court on the premises stated in his separate opinion in Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 390 U. S. 676, 704. In addition, he considers it a particularly fruitless judicial act to strike down on the score of vagueness a state statute which has already been repealed.
NOTES
[*] Section 484-i was repealed by N. Y. Laws 1967, c. 791. See Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 631-632, n. 1.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.