29 Ohio App. 2d 227 - State v. Albini’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““1. While the states, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, have a broader power to restrict the freedom, or liberty, of speech and the press than the federal government has under the First Amendment, obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom or liberty of speech and the press under either the First or Fourteenth Amendments. “2. No standard for testing what constitutes obscenity has been established by a majority of the United States Supreme Court, but there are several varying and conflicting standards applied to render judgments with one predominant minority view constituting the 'balance’ by which the outcome of cases is determined. “3. The 'deciding-minority view’ of the United States Supreme Court is that obscenity constitutes material as to which the following three elements exist and coalesce: (1) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (2) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (3) the material is utterly without redeeming social value. “9. 'Medium core pornography’ as well as 'hard core pornography’ constitutes obscenity that is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moody v. Thrush Corp.

2. ““1. Under the same circumstances, and subject to the same limitations as are generally imposed with regard to arrests without a warrant for a violation of other criminal laws, a police officer may make an arrest without a warrant for a violation of criminal obscenity laws. “2. Incident to a lawful arrest without a warrant for a violation of criminal obscenity laws, a police officer may seize so much of the obscene material as is necessary for evidence in a prosecution of such violation so long as such seizure is for the purpose of preserving such evidence and preventing its concealment or destruction and no unlawful search is involved. “3. There is no constitutional right to engage in the business of commercial exploitation of obscenity.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moody v. Thrush Corp.

3. ““Here, the seizure was pursuant to an arrest without a warrant. There is no contention by defendant that the arrest was invalid, or that any unlawful search was made except for the reason that obscenity was involved. The offense was committed in the presence of the police officers, and the evidence seised ivas obviously within their view. “There is no constitutional requirement that an arrest for a violation of obscenity laws he made in any different manner from an arrest for the violation of any other law. The ‘due process’ requirements are the same in each instance. ‘Probable cause’ is the test. There was ‘probable cause’ in this case.” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moody v. Thrush Corp.