Art Theater Guild, Inc., Et Al. v. Ewing, 421 U.S. 923 (1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Art Theater Guild, Inc., Et Al. v. Ewing, 421 U.S. 923 (1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
71 citation events across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: J-R Distributors, Inc. v. Kenneth Eikenberry, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General for the State of Washington Donald C. Brockett, in His Official Capacity as Prosecuting Attorney for Spokane County, State of Washington, James Sloane, in His Official Capacity as City Attorney for the City of Spokane, Washington, Jeffrey C. Sullivan, in His Official Capacity as Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Yakima, State of Washington, and Fred Andrews, in His Official Capacity as City Attorney for the City of Yakima, Washington, Azure Entertainment Corporation of Washington v. Kenneth Eikenberry, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General for the State of Washington Donald C. Brockett, in His Official Capacity as Prosecuting Attorney for Spokane County, State of Washington and James Sloane, in His Official Capacity as City Attorney for the City of Spokane, Washington, Jack R. Burns, in His Representative Capacity as of the Estate of Selom F. Burns v. The Honorable Kenneth Eikenberry, as Attorney General of the State of Washington, in His Representative Capacity Only, Playtime Theatres, Inc., a Washington Corporation v. The Honorable Kenneth Eikenberry, as Attorney General of the State of Washington, in His Representative Capacity, Only, Donald C. Brockett, Prosecuting Attorney of Spokane County, in His Representative Capacity Only, and James Sloane, Spokane City Attorney, in His Representative Capacity Only, Norm Maleng, Prosecuting Attorney of King County in His Representative Capacity Only, Kukio Bay Properties, Inc., a Washington Corporation v. Norm Maleng, Prosecuting Attorney of King County, in His Representative Capacity Only, Spokane Arcades, Inc., a Washington Corporation v. The Honorable Kenneth Eikenberry, as Attorney General of the State of Washington, in His Representative Capacity Only, Donald C. Brockett, Prosecuting Attorney of Spokane County, in His Representative Capacity Only, and James Sloane, Spokane City Attorney, in His Representative Capacity Only, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Madrona Publishers, Inc., Superior Publishing Company Washington Library Association Pacific Northwest Booksellers Association Motion Picturers Exhibitors of Washington, Alaska, and Northern Idaho Washington State Council of Teachers of English Washington Library Media Association and the Community College Librarian and Media Specialists Association of Washington v. The Honorable Kenneth Eikenberry, as Attorney General of the State of Washington, in His Representative Capacity Only (ca9, 1984-02-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) J-R Distributors, Inc. v. Kenneth Eikenberry, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General for the State of Washington Donald C. Brockett, in His Official Capacity as Prosecuting Attorney for Spokane County, State of Washington, James Sloane, in His Official Capacity as City Attorney for the City of Spokane, Washington, Jeffrey C. Sullivan, in His Official Capacity as Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Yakima, State of Washington, and Fred Andrews, in His Official Capacity as City Attorney for the City of Yakima, Washington, Azure Entertainment Corporation of Washington v. Kenneth Eikenberry, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General for the State of Washington Donald C. Brockett, in His Official Capacity as Prosecuting Attorney for Spokane County, State of Washington and James Sloane, in His Official Capacity as City Attorney for the City of Spokane, Washington, Jack R. Burns, in His Representative Capacity as of the Estate of Selom F. Burns v. The Honorable Kenneth Eikenberry, as Attorney General of the State of Washington, in His Representative Capacity Only, Playtime Theatres, Inc., a Washington Corporation v. The Honorable Kenneth Eikenberry, as Attorney General of the State of Washington, in His Representative Capacity, Only, Donald C. Brockett, Prosecuting Attorney of Spokane County, in His Representative Capacity Only, and James Sloane, Spokane City Attorney, in His Representative Capacity Only, Norm Maleng, Prosecuting Attorney of King County in His Representative Capacity Only, Kukio Bay Properties, Inc., a Washington Corporation v. Norm Maleng, Prosecuting Attorney of King County, in His Representative Capacity Only, Spokane Arcades, Inc., a Washington Corporation v. The Honorable Kenneth Eikenberry, as Attorney General of the State of Washington, in His Representative Capacity Only, Donald C. Brockett, Prosecuting Attorney of Spokane County, in His Representative Capacity Only, and James Sloane, Spokane City Attorney, in His Representative Capacity Only, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Madrona Publishers, Inc., Superior Publishing Company Washington Library Association Pacific Northwest Booksellers Association Motion Picturers Exhibitors of Washington, Alaska, and Northern Idaho Washington State Council of Teachers of English Washington Library Media Association and the Community College Librarian and Media Specialists Association of Washington v. The Honorable Kenneth Eikenberry, as Attorney General of the State of Washington, in His Representative Capacity Only
9th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Id. at 923, 95 S.Ct. at 1649.
examined Cited as authority (rule) J-R Distributors, Inc. v. Eikenberry (3×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Id. at 923, 95 S.Ct. at 1649.
discussed Cited "see" Joseph P. Rolles v. Civil Service Commission (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Craycroft v. Ferrall, 397 U.S. 335 , 90 S.Ct. 1152 , 25 L.Ed.2d 351 (1970), vacating, Craycroft v. Ferrall, 408 F.2d 587 (9th Cir. 1969). . 416 U.S. at 211 , 95 S.Ct. at 1670 (dissenting opinion of Marshall, J., joined by Douglas and Brennan, JJ.), 166, 95 S.Ct. 1649 (concurring and dissenting opinion of Powell, J., joined by Blackmun, J.), and 185, 94 S.Ct. 1652 (concurring and dissenting opinion of White, J.).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Art Theater Guild, Inc.
v.
Clark L. Ewing
73-1973.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 21, 1975.
421 U.S. 923
Brennan, Stewart, Marshall.
Cited by 29 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

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

Lead Opinion

Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ohio dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Dissent

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

dissenting.

Appellee brought this action in the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County, Ohio, to prohibit showing of the motion picture “Without A Stitch” on the theory that the film’s exhibition rendered the theater itself a nuisance. Under Ohio law, any place which exhibits filmed obscenity is a nuisance. See State ex rel. Keating v. A Motion Picture Film Entitled “Vixen,” 35 Ohio St. 2d 215, 301 N. E. 2d 880 (1973). Obscenity was defined as follows:

“(A) Any material or performance is ‘obscene’ if, when considered as a whole and judged with reference to ordinary adults, any of the following apply:
“(1) Its dominant appeal is to prurient interest;
“(2) Its dominant tendency is to arouse lust by displaying or depicting nudity, sexual excitement, or sexual conduct in a way which tends to represent human beings as mere objects of sexual appetite;
“(3) Its dominant tendency is to arouse lust by displaying or depicting bestiality or extreme or bizarre violence, cruelty, or brutality;
“(4) It contains a series of displays or descriptions of nudity, sexual excitement, sexual conduct, bestiality, extreme or bizarre violence, cruelty,, or brutality, or human bodily functions of elimination, the cumulative effect of which is a dominant tendency to appeal to prurient interest, when the appeal to such interest is primarily for its own sake[*924] or for commercial exploitation, rather than for a genuine scientific, educational, sociological, moral, or artistic purpose.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2905.34 (Supp. 1972), now Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2907.01 (1975).

The Court of Common Pleas found the film obscene and enjoined its exhibition. The Lucas County Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. State ex rel. Ewing v. A Motion Picture Film Entitled “Without a Stitch,” 37 Ohio St. 2d 95, 307 N. E. 2d 911 (1974).

It is my view that “at least in the absence of distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to unconsenting adults, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the State and Federal Governments from attempting wholly to suppress sexually oriented materials on the basis of their allegedly ‘obscene’ contents.” Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 113 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting). Since it is clear that, when tested by that constitutional standard, § 2905.34 is unconstitutionally overbroad and therefore facially invalid, I disagree with the holding that the appeal does not present a substantial federal question, and therefore dissent from the Court’s dismissal of the appeal.

For the reasons stated in my dissent in Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 47 (1973), and because the judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court was rendered after Miller, I would 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).