Supreme Court of the United States, 1970

Walker v. Ohio

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 15, 1970 · Burger, Harlan, Marshall, Blackmun

398 U.S. 434; 90 S. Ct. 1884; 26 L. Ed. 2d 385; 1970 U.S. LEXIS 27 (United States Reports)

Cases that cite this one

24 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.

Hearn v. Short (District Court, S.D. Texas 1971)
United States v. William Groner, D/B/A Lucky Distributors (5th Cir. 1972)
Miller v. California (Supreme Court of the United States 1973)
Vernon Walker Huffman v. United States, Dennis Eugene Pryba v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1972)
People v. Bloss (Mich. 1972)
State v. Cox (Wash. Ct. App. 1970)
State v. Carlson (Minn. 1971)
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (Supreme Court of the United States 1973)
Commonwealth v. LaLONDE (Pa. 1972)
State v. Carlson (Minn. 1972)
People v. Bloss (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)
State v. Katz (Superior Court of Delaware 1971)
United States v. Thevis (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1971)
Hayse v. Van Hoomissen (District Court, D. Oregon 1970)
Hunt v. Keriakos (1st Cir. 1970)
State v. Hoelscher (Minn. 1972)
Woodruff v. State (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1971)
Hoyt v. Minnesota (Supreme Court of the United States 1970)
Kaplan v. California (Supreme Court of the United States 1973)
Kaplan v. California (Supreme Court of the United States 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)
Keriakos v. Hunt (Supreme Court of the United States 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 of the Court

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767 (1967).

Dissenting Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Burger,

dissenting.

The trial court, endeavoring to apply the standards articulated by this Court, held that the materials in question are obscene within the meaning of the relevant Ohio statute. This conclusion rested on findings that the materials are patently offensive to contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; that, when taken as a whole, their dominant theme appeals to the prurient interest of the reader; and that they are utterly without redeeming social value. The Ohio appellate courts declined to disturb that judgment. Yet today the Court reverses, citing only Redrup.

I dissent from such a summary disposition, not only for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Cain v. Kentucky, 397 U. S. 319 (1970), but also because I find no justification, constitutional or otherwise, for this Court’s assuming the role of a supreme and unreviewable board of censorship for the 60 States, subjectively judging each piece of material brought before it without regard to the findings or conclusions of other courts, state or federal. That is not one of the purposes for which this Court was established.

Mr. Justice Harlan,

for reasons expressed in his *435opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496 (1957); Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, 203 (1964); and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 455 (1966), would leave the judgment of the state court undisturbed.

Mb. Justice Marshall and Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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