Harding v. United States, 414 U.S. 964 (1973).

Harding v. United States, 414 U.S. 964 (1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite

green Positive treatment 4.7 score

36 citation events across 5 distinct courts.

Strongest positive: United States v. Richard Alan Haes, D/B/A H & H Distributing Co. (ca8, 1977-05-17)

Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of

1973 1999 2026

Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗

examined Cited "see" United States v. Richard Alan Haes, D/B/A H & H Distributing Co. (6×)

8th Cir. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high

See United States v. Harding, 475 F.2d 480 (10th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 414 U.S. 964 , 94 S.Ct. 274 , 38 L.Ed.2d 211 (1973).

examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Clifton S. Hairston (3×)

D.C. Cir. · 1974 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low

See, e. g., United States v. Harding, 475 F.2d 480, 485 (10th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 414 U.S. 964 , 94 S.Ct. 274 , 38 L.Ed.2d 211 (1973); United States v. Jansen, 475 F.2d 312 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 826 , 94 S.Ct. 130 , 38 L.Ed.2d 59 (1973); United States v. O’Day, 467 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 912 , 93 S.Ct. 975 , 35 L.Ed.2d 275 (1973); United States v. Driscoll, 454 F.2d 792, 799 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Cox, 428 F.2d 683, 689 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 881 , 91 S.Ct. 127 , 27 L.Ed.2d 120 (1970); United States v. Cacchillo, 416…

Treatment classes

Mentioned in passing 27

Cited "see" 6

Cited "see, e.g." 3

Treatment by court

ca8	0R/0Y/6G	12
ca10	0R/0Y/0G	10
cadc	0R/0Y/3G	6
scotus	0R/0Y/0G	5
oklacrimapp	0R/0Y/0G	3

Frequently cited alongside

#2	green	Burdeau	co-cited 6×
#4	green	Roaden	co-cited 5×
#6	green	Wong Sun	co-cited 4×
#7	green	Miller	co-cited 4×
#11	green	Mapp	co-cited 3×
#12	green	Marcus	co-cited 3×

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…

Alex Harding, AKA Mark Harding
v.
United States

72-1646.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct 23, 1973.

414 U.S. 964

94 S. Ct. 274

38 L. Ed. 2d 211

1973 U.S. LEXIS 1083

Google Scholar ↗ | CourtListener ↗

Brennan, Stewart, Marshall.

Cited by 12 opinions | Published

Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

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

Petition for writ of certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973); Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115, 93 S.Ct. 2680, 37 L.Ed.2d 492 (1973); United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Super 8 mm. Film, 413 U.S. 123, 93 S.Ct. 2665, 37 L.Ed.2d 500 (1973); United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, 93 S.Ct. 2674, 37 L.Ed.2d 513 (1973); Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483, 93 S.Ct. 2789, 37 L.Ed.2d 745 (1973); Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496, 93 S.Ct. 2796, 37 L.Ed.2d 757 (1973); and Alexander v. Virginia, 413 U.S. 836, 93 S.Ct. 2803, 37 L.Ed.2d 993 (1973).

Opinion on remand, 10 Cir., 491 F.2d 697.

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

Lead Opinion

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49 (1973); Kaplan v. California, 413 U. S. 115 (1973); United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Film, 413 U. S. 123 (1973); United States v. Orito, 413 U. S. 139 (1973); Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483 (1973); Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U. S. 496 (1973); and Alexander v. Virginia, 413 U. S. 836 (1973). Mr. Justice Douglas, being of the view that federal obscenity regulation is prohibited by the First Amendment (see United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Film, 413 U. S. 123, 130 (Douglas, J., dissenting)), would grant certio-[*965] rari in this case and reverse judgment of conviction.

Dissent

Mr. Justice Brennan, with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall concur,

dissenting.

Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on charges of using an express company for carriage of allegedly obscene matter in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1462, which provides as follows:

“Whoever . . . knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier, for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce—

“(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character

“Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both . . .

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, I expressed the view that “[wjhatever 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.” Id., 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, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and remand for further proceedings consistent with my dissent in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 73 (1973). 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).