Sovereign News Company v. John T. Corrigan, Prosecuting Attorney

Sixth Circuit

Sovereign News Company v. John T. Corrigan, Prosecuting Attorney

610 F.2d 428

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided January 22, 1980·No. 78-3064 to 78-3066·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated appeals are from the decision of the district court reported at 448 F.Supp. 306, rendered October 31, 1977, holding parts of the Ohio obscenity statute, R.C. Ohio §§ 2907.01(F) and 2907.32, to be unconstitutionally overbroad and vague under Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973).

On December 7, 1978, the Supreme Court of Ohio rendered an opinion in State of Ohio v. Burgun, 56 Ohio St.2d 354, 384 N.E.2d 255 (1978), holding that the Ohio statute when construed to incorporate the guidelines of Miller v. California, is valid and constitutional. The first syllabus, prepared by the Supreme Court of Ohio, is as follows:

R. C. 2907.01(F), which sets forth the definition of “obscenity,” is neither unconstitutionally overbroad nor void for vagueness when it is authoritatively construed to incorporate the guidelines prescribed in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, [93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419].

56 Ohio St.2d at 354, 384 N.E.2d at 255.

Upon consideration of the briefs, oral arguments of counsel and the entire record, it is ORDERED that these cases be remanded to the district court for further consideration in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio in State of Ohio v. Burgun.

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

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated appeals are from the decision of the district court reported at 448 F.Supp. 306, rendered October 31, 1977, holding parts of the Ohio obscenity statute, R.C. Ohio §§ 2907.01(F) and 2907.32, to be unconstitutionally overbroad and vague under Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973).

On December 7, 1978, the Supreme Court of Ohio rendered an opinion in State of Ohio v. Burgun, 56 Ohio St.2d 354, 384 N.E.2d 255 (1978), holding that the Ohio statute when construed to incorporate the guidelines of Miller v. California, is valid and constitutional. The first syllabus, prepared by the Supreme Court of Ohio, is as follows:

R. C. 2907.01(F), which sets forth the definition of “obscenity,” is neither unconstitutionally overbroad nor void for vagueness when it is authoritatively construed to incorporate the guidelines prescribed in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, [93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419].

56 Ohio St.2d at 354, 384 N.E.2d at 255.

Upon consideration of the briefs, oral arguments of counsel and the entire record, it is ORDERED that these cases be remanded to the district court for further consideration in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio in State of Ohio v. Burgun.

Sovereign News Company v. John T. Corrigan, Prosecuting Attorney, 610 F.2d 428 (6th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

610 F.2d 428 (Sovereign News Company v. John T. Corrigan, Prosecuting Attorney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related