Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

388 U.S. 447

Aday v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1967-06-12

Relies on Roth v. United States · Book Named 'John Cleland's Memoirs of Woman of Pleasure' v. Attorney General of Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Redrup v. State of New York

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · 6–3 · Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1967-06-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 168 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1987 · most notably Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973), Ginsberg v. New York (1968)

83 federal appellate · 3 district · 47 state decisions — followed in 13 states

1040196719701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Stanley Fleishman, for petitioners.

¶1

Solicitor General Marshall, for the United States.

¶2

Melvin L. Wulf, Rolland R. O'Hare and Erwin B. Ellmann, for the American Civil Liberties Union and others, as amici curiae.

¶3

Horace S. Manges, for the American Book Publishers Council, Inc., as amicus curiae.

¶4

Charles H. Keating, Jr., and James J. Clancy, for Citizens for Decent Literature, Inc., as amicus curiae.

¶5

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

¶6

PER CURIAM.

¶7

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. Redrup v. State of New York, 386 U.S. 767, 87 S.Ct. 1414, 18 L.Ed.2d 515.

¶8

THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BRENNAN would grant the petition, vacate the judgment, and remand in light of A Book Named 'John Cleland's' Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure v. Attorney General of Com. of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 86 S.Ct. 975, 16 L.Ed.2d 1.

¶9

Mr. Justice CLARK would grant the petition and affirm.

¶10

Mr. Justice HARLAN concurs in the reversal on the basis of the reasoning set forth in his opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498, and Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U.S. 478, 82 S.Ct. 1432, 8 L.Ed.2d 639.

/388/us/447 · .json · Public domain