Melvin Friedman v. United States, 421 U.S. 1004 (1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Melvin Friedman v. United States, 421 U.S. 1004 (1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1996 · …the required intent is no less nor no more than that necessary to commit the substantive crime. ⚠ not in text
163 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 53 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Stearns Airport Equipment Co. v. FMC Corp. (txnd, 1997-03-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Stearns Airport Equipment Co. v. FMC Corp.
N.D. Tex. · 1997 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
o case supports this thesis" that "the mere showing of adoption of proprietary and exclusionary specifications is sufficient to establish a violation of the antitrust laws
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. John Corcoran Wicker
8th Cir. · 1996 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the required intent is no less nor no more than that necessary to commit the substantive crime.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. John C. Wicker
8th Cir. · 1996 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the required intent is no less nor no more than that necessary to commit the substantive crime.
discussed Cited "see" The Domed Stadium Hotel, Inc., D/B/A Holiday Inn-Superdome v. Holiday Inns, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Whitten v. Paddock Pool Builders, 508 F.2d 547 (1st Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1004 , 95 S.Ct. 2407 , 44 L.Ed.2d 673 (1975) (3%); Mullis v. Arco Petroleum Corp., 502 F.2d 290, 297 (7th Cir.1974) (3%); Harris v. Atlantic-Richfield Company, 469 F.Supp. 759, 763 (E.D.N.C.1978) (3%); I.
cited Cited "see" American Ass'n of Exporters & Importers-Textile & Apparel Group v. United States
Ct. Intl. Trade · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Kissinger, 506 F.2d 136, 156 (1974) (Leventhal, J., dissenting), cert, denied, 421 U.S. 1004 , 95 S.Ct. 2406 , 44 L.Ed.2d 673 (1975).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. James F. Magnus
7th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Friedman, 506 F.2d 511, 512, 517 (8th Cir.1974) (where trial court acquitted defendant of substantive charges at close of all evidence, and same evidence was used by government in attempt to prove conspiracy charge, collateral estoppel did not require reversal of conspiracy conviction because issue of guilt on substantive counts was not the same as issue of guilt on conspiracy count), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1004 , 95 S.Ct. 2407 , 44 L.Ed.2d 673 (1975).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." General Communications Engineering, Inc. v. Motorola Communications and Electronics, Inc.
N.D. Cal. · 1976 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Perryton Wholesale Inc. v. Pioneer Distributor Co., 353 F.2d 618 (10th Cir. 1965) cert. denied 383 U.S. 945 , 86 S.Ct. *289 1202, 16 L.Ed.2d 208 (1966). 31 However, in a recent opinion from the First Circuit, Whitten v. Paddock Pool Builders, 508 F.2d 547 (1st Cir. 1974) cert. denied 421 U.S. 1004 , 95 S.Ct. 2407 , 44 L.Ed.2d 673 (1975), the court rejected its prior holding that unfair competitive practices accompanied by an intent to hurt a competitor constitute per se violations of the antitrust laws, Id. at 561 , thereby substantially undermining the entire line of cases on which p…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Friedman Et Al.
v.
United States
74-1130.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1975.
421 U.S. 1004
Beennan, Stewaet, Mabshall.
Cited by 123 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 92%
Citer courts: Eighth Circuit (2) · N.D. Texas (1)
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

See 423 U.S. 885, 96 S.Ct. 160.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice MARSHALL join, dissenting.

Lead Opinion

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Dissent

Me. Justice Beennan, with whom Me. Justice Stewaet and Me. Justice Mabshall join,

dissenting.

Petitioner Sooner State News Agency was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas of transporting obscene literature through the United States mail in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1465, which provides in pertinent part as follows:

“Whoever knowingly transports in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of sale or distribution any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, film, paper, letter, writing, print, silhouette, drawing, figure, image, cast, phonograph[*1005] recording, electrical transcription or other article capable of producing sound or any other matter of indecent or immoral character, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

Petitioners Friedman, Mitchum, Fishman, and Boyd were convicted in the same District Court of conspiracy to violate 18 U. S. C. § 1465. 18 U. S. C. § 371. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed all petitioners’ convictions. 506 F. 2d 511 (1974).

I adhere to my dissent in United States v. Orito, 413 U. S. 139, 147 (1973), in which, speaking of 18 U. S. C. § 1462, which is similar in scope to § 1465, I expressed the view that “[w]hatever the extent of the Federal Government’s power to bar the distribution of allegedly obscene material to juveniles or the offensive exposure of such material to unconsenting adults, the statute before us is clearly overbroad and unconstitutional on its face.” 413 U. S., at 147-148. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 47 (1973), I would therefore grant certiorari, and, since the judgments of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit were rendered after Orito, reverse. In that circumstance, I have no occasion to consider whether the other questions presented merit plenary review. See Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483, 494 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

Finally, it does not appear from the petition and response that the obscenity of the disputed material was adjudged by applying local community standards. Based on my dissent in Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 141 (1974), I believe that, consistent with the Due Process Clause, petitioners must be given an opportunity to have their cases decided on, and to introduce evidence relevant to, the legal standard upon which their[*1006] convictions have ultimately come to depend. Thus, even on its own terms, the Court should vacate the judgments below and remand for a determination whether petitioners should be afforded a new trial under local community standards.