Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

231 F.2d 775

Docket Nos. 12918, 12971, 13023.

Roy A. Oakley v. Arthur E. Summerfield, Postmaster General of the United States, Arthur E. Summerfield, Postmaster General of the United States v. Roy A. Oakley, Roy A. Oakley v. Arthur E. Summerfield, Postmaster General of the United States

Full caption · 3 consolidated cases

  • Roy A. OAKLEY et alv.Arthur E. SUMMERFIELD, Postmaster General of the United States, et al., Appellees. Arthur E
  • SUMMERFIELD, Postmaster General of the United States, et alv.Roy A. OAKLEY et al., Appellees. Roy A
  • OAKLEY et alv.Arthur E. SUMMERFIELD, Postmaster General of the United States et al

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Jan. 31, 1956. Decided March 29, 1956.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1956-03-29

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1957

1 federal appellate ·

3 counsel of record

Relies on United States v. California Eastern Line, Inc. · Tourlanes Publishing Company v. Arthur E. Summerfield, Postmaster General of the United States, Arthur E. Summerfield, Postmaster General of the United States v. Tourlanes Publishing Company, Tourlanes Publishing Company v. Arthur E. Summerfield, Postmaster General of the United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1956-03-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Josiah Lyman, Washington, D.C., for appellants in Nos. 12,918 and 13,023, and appellees in No. 12,971.

Mr. William F. Becker, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U.S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll, Asst. U.S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellees in Nos. 12,918 and 13,023 and appellants in No. 12,971.

Mr. Oliver Gasch, Principal Asst. U.S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellants in No. 12,971.

Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and WASHINGTON and BASTIAN, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

This litigation is similar to the Tourlanes cases (Tourlanes Publishing Co. v. Summerfield), 97 U.S.App.D.C.-- , 231 F.2d 773. Oakley is a photographer and not a publisher. However, he sells numerous admittedly innocuous books and publications, in addition to the photographs found by the Post Office Department to be obscene. The judgment of [98 U.S.App.D.C. 23] the District Court, which was similar to its order in Tourlanes, will likewise be affirmed (No. 12,971). During oral argument, counsel for Oakley made the same statement concerning his crossappeal as was made by counsel for Tourlanes. On a like basis, the appeals by Oakley will be dismissed (Nos. 12,918 and 13,023).

¶2

So ordered.

/231/f2d/775 · .json · Public domain