Ridens Et Al. v. Illinois Et Al.
Cases that cite this one
35 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.
- People v. Bailey (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)
- Ward v. Illinois (Supreme Court of the United States 1977)
- People v. Speer (Ill. App. Ct. 1977)
- Terrazas v. Ramirez (Tex. 1991)
- People v. Anderson (Ill. 1986)
- United States v. Raymond Ramirez, United States of America v. Claude Perpignand (5th Cir. 1985)
- People v. Anderson (Ill. App. Ct. 1985)
- People v. Lerch (Ill. App. Ct. 1985)
- United States v. Various Articles of Merchandise, Seizure No. 170, United States of America v. Various Articles of Merchandise, Seizure No. 182 (7th Cir. 1984)
- Beryl N. Jones v. Caddo Parish School Board v. June Phillips, Movant-Appellant (5th Cir. 1983)
- New Orleans Public Service, Inc., Ernest Morial, Movants-Appellants v. United Gas Pipe Line Company (5th Cir. 1982)
- City of Chicago v. Festival Theatre Corp. (Ill. 1982)
- State v. Pil Dong Han (Haw. 1981)
- Goldberg v. Tarr (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1980)
- City of Belleville v. Morgan (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)
- Eagle Books, Inc. v. Reinhard (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1976)
- People v. Ward (Ill. 1976)
- Watkins v. Fordice (5th Cir. 1993)
- Hollis Watkins v. Kirk Fordice, Governor of the State of Mississippi (5th Cir. 1993)
- Stack v. Gamill (5th Cir. 1986)
- American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission and the United States of America (5th Cir. 1982)
- James P. Kartell, M.D., and Grant v. Rodkey, M.D., Intervenor-Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. (1st Cir. 1982)
- Woolen v. Surtran Taxicabs, Inc. (5th Cir. 1982)
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
Frank C. RIDENS et al.
v.
State of ILLINOIS et al.
No. 74-1003.
Supreme Court of the United States
May 27, 1975
On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice MARSHALL join, dissenting.
Petitioners were convicted of selling allegedly obscene publications in violation of the Illinois Obscenity Statute, Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, c. 38, ¶11-20, and the obscenity ordinance of the city of Moline, Illinois. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed their convictions. 51 Ill.2d 410, 282 N.E.2d 691 (1972). We granted the petition for certiorari and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973). 413 U.S. 912, 93 S.Ct. 3046, 37 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1973). On remand, the Illinois Supreme Court again affirmed the convictions.
For the reasons stated in my dissent from the remand of this case, 413 U.S. 912, 93 S.Ct. 3046, 37 L.Ed.2d 1030, and because the present judgment was rendered after Miller, I would grant the petition and reverse.*
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, being of the view that any state or federal ban on, or regulation of, obscenity is prohibited by the Constitution, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 508-514, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957); Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 42-47, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 70-73, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973), would grant certiorari and summarily reverse.
Although four of us would grant and reverse, the Justices who join this opinion do not insist that the case be decided on the merits.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.