Harold Wasserman v. The Municipal Court of the Alhambra Judicial District

Ninth Circuit

Harold Wasserman v. The Municipal Court of the Alhambra Judicial District

449 F.2d 787

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 3, 1971

Docket26757_1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 449 F.2d 787 (Harold Wasserman v. The Municipal Court of the Alhambra Judicial District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harold Wasserman v. The Municipal Court of the Alhambra Judicial District, 449 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. As we have held that we are required to do, we have made our own “independent, de novo constitutional judgment * * * as to whether the [advertising leaflet] involved is constitutionally protected.” (Childs v. Oregon, 9 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 272, 275). We agree with the District Judge that the leaflet was properly found by the California courts to fall within the three part definition of obscenity stated in Redrup v. New York, 1967, 386 U.S. 767, 770-771, 87 S.Ct. 1414, 18 L.Ed.2d 515, and in Cal.Penal Code § 311(a). See also Ginzburg v. United States, 1966, 383 U.S. 463, 86 S.Ct. 942, 16 L.Ed.2d 31.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. As we have held that we are required to do, we have made our own “independent, de novo constitutional judgment * * * as to whether the [advertising leaflet] involved is constitutionally protected.” (Childs v. Oregon, 9 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 272, 275). We agree with the District Judge that the leaflet was properly found by the California courts to fall within the three part definition of obscenity stated in Redrup v. New York, 1967, 386 U.S. 767, 770-771, 87 S.Ct. 1414, 18 L.Ed.2d 515, and in Cal.Penal Code § 311(a). See also Ginzburg v. United States, 1966, 383 U.S. 463, 86 S.Ct. 942, 16 L.Ed.2d 31.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

449 F.2d 787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-wasserman-v-the-municipal-court-of-the-alhambra-judicial-district-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack