Bantam Books, Inc. v. Melko

103 A.2d 256, 14 N.J. 524, 1954 N.J. LEXIS 338
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedMarch 8, 1954
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 103 A.2d 256 (Bantam Books, Inc. v. Melko) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Melko, 103 A.2d 256, 14 N.J. 524, 1954 N.J. LEXIS 338 (N.J. 1954).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

By the voluntary acts of the plaintiff by submission to conferences before suit, the object of its suit was reduced to restoration of a single publication of the plaintiff, namely, The Chinese Room, to circulation. The defendant prosecutor’s defenses were all related by him to laws of this State prohibiting and penalizing the advertising, offering for sale and selling of obscene matter. The Superior Court, Chancery Division, having found that the book in question was not criminally obscene, all other issues were rendered moot. This ordinarily would require dismissal here, inasmuch as the defendant prosecutor has not appealed from the determination that the specific book is not criminally obscene. The defendant prosecutor, however, complains about the breadth of the judgment. Without an expression of views upon the merits, the judgment is modified by exscinding paragraphs 1 through 9, inclusive, thereof and substituting therefor the following paragraph:

1. That the County Prosecutor of Middlesex County be and he hereby is enjoined from interfering with the right of the plaintiff to distribute and sell the book entitled The Chinese Room in Middlesex County.

As so modified the judgment of the Superior Court, Chancery Division, 25 N. J. Super. 292, is affirmed and the cause is remanded to that court for formal entry of the judgment as modified hereby.

For modification — Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Heher, Oliphant, Wachenfeld, Burling, Jacobs and Brennan — 7.

Opposed — None.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

in Re George Green and Garlan Green
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
State v. Howard
517 A.2d 1233 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1986)
People v. Pinkus
96 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 32 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1979)
Keuper v. Wilson
268 A.2d 760 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1970)
Ruvoldt v. Tumulty
259 A.2d 491 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1969)
Hudson County News Co. v. Sills
195 A.2d 626 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1963)
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan
372 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1963)
Grove Press, Inc. v. Calissi
208 F. Supp. 580 (D. New Jersey, 1962)
State v. Hudson County News Co.
183 A.2d 161 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1962)
State v. Hudson County News Co.
173 A.2d 20 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1961)
Aday v. Superior Court
362 P.2d 47 (California Supreme Court, 1961)
Eleuteri v. Richman
135 A.2d 191 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1957)
United States v. Samuel Roth
237 F.2d 796 (Second Circuit, 1957)
Adams Newark Theatre Co. v. City of Newark
126 A.2d 340 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1956)
State v. Kohler
123 A.2d 881 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 A.2d 256, 14 N.J. 524, 1954 N.J. LEXIS 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bantam-books-inc-v-melko-nj-1954.