I. M. Amusement Corp. v. Ohio
Cases that cite this one
26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Vernon Walker Huffman v. United States, Dennis Eugene Pryba v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1972)
- United States v. William Groner, D/B/A Lucky Distributors (5th Cir. 1972)
- People v. Bloss (Mich. 1972)
- Grand Rapids City Attorney v. Bloss (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
- People v. Billingsley (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)
- State v. Hoyt (Minn. 1970)
- Commonwealth v. LaLONDE (Pa. 1972)
- Sovereign News Co. v. Falke (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1977)
- State v. Lebewitz (Minn. 1972)
- State v. Carlson (Minn. 1972)
- United States v. New Orleans Book Mart, Inc. (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1971)
- State v. Katz (Superior Court of Delaware 1971)
- State v. Hartstein (Mo. 1971)
- In re Seven Magazines (R.I. 1970)
- Hayse v. Van Hoomissen (District Court, D. Oregon 1970)
- In re Seven Magazines (R.I. 1970)
- United States v. Robert Baranov, United States of America v. Harvey B. Levitt, United States of America v. H. B. Levitt & Associates, Inc. (9th Cir. 1969)
- Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (Supreme Court of the United States 1973)
- State v. Lebewitz (Minn. 1972)
- State v. Hoelscher (Minn. 1972)
- Duggan v. Guild Theatre, Inc. (Pa. 1969)
- Village Books, Inc. v. State's Attorney (Md. 1973)
- People v. Mature Enterprises, Inc. (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1973)
- State Ex Rel. Sensenbrenner v. Adult Book Store (Ohio Ct. App. 1971)
- People v. Kirkpatrick (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1970)
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
I. M. AMUSEMENT CORP.
v.
OHIO.
Supreme Court of United States.
Allen Brown for appellant.
Melvin G. Rueger and Calvin W. Prem for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE concurs on the ground that evidence of contemporary community standards was excluded at trial.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would affirm for the reasons set forth in his separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496, 500-503, and in his dissenting opinion in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 455.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.