Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 (1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 (1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
373 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 57 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: ROSEDALE AND ROSEHILL CEMETERY ASSOCIATION v. TOWNSHIP OF READINGTON (njd, 2020-12-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 37 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ROSEDALE AND ROSEHILL CEMETERY ASSOCIATION v. TOWNSHIP OF READINGTON
D.N.J. · 2020 · confidence medium
Greyned, 408 U.S. at 110 ; see also United States v. Thirty- seven (37) Photographers, 402 U.S. 363, 369 (1971) (explaining that “it is for Congress, not this Court, to rewrite the statute”); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58 (1965) (declining to rewrite Maryland’s statute); Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139, 141 (1968) (same, but with Chicago’s ordinance).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Doe Inc. v. Mukasey
2d Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
Considering a statute authorizing customs agents to seize obscene materials, see 19 U.S.C. § 1305 (a), the Court noted that the statute lacked time limits on initiating and completing judicial proceedings, see Thirty-Seven Photographs, 402 U.S. at 368, limits constitutionally required by Freedman, 380 U.S. at 58 , Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139, 141 (1968), and Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410, 417 (1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kopp v. Fair Political Practices Commission (2×)
Cal. · 1995 · confidence medium
The first issue was resolved in an opinion by Justice White, who noted that the court had previously invalidated, as violations of the procedural due process guarantee, three similar state, local, and federal laws that likewise failed to provide for prompt judicial review of "administrative censorship" actions. ( Freedman v. Maryland (1965) 380 U.S. 51 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 649 , 85 *630 S.Ct. 734]; Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack (1968) 390 U.S. 139, 141 [ 19 L.Ed.2d 966, 968-969 , 88 S.Ct. 754 ]; Blount v. Rizzi (1971) 400 U.S. 410 [ 27 L.Ed.2d 498 , 91 S.Ct. 423 ].) The Thirty-Seven Photographs court ac…
cited Cited as authority (rule) TK's Video, Inc. v. Denton County, Tex.
5th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
In Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139, 141 (1967) (per curiam), the Supreme Court found that 50 to 57 days is not a specified brief period.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hillman v. Britton
Cal. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
(See Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack (1968) 390 U.S. 139, 141-142 [ 19 L.Ed.2d 966, 968-969 , 88 S.Ct. 754 ], interval of 50 to 57 days before final administrative censorship action Was disapproved, did not satisfy Freedman.) We do not decide whether the exact procedures of Freedman apply to a solicitation ordinance.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robert Neff
9th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
The' law does not require him “ ‘to prove guilt to avoid admitting it.’ ” Marchetti v. United States, supra, 390 U.S. at 50, 88 S.Ct. at 754, quoting United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22, 34 , 73 S.Ct. 510, 516 , 97 L.Ed. 754 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (2×)
SCOTUS · 1975 · confidence medium
See United States v. Thirtyseven Photographs, 402 U. S. 363, 367 (1971); Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U. S. 410, 419-421 (1971); Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U. S. 139, 141-142 (1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (2×)
SCOTUS · 1973 · confidence medium
Here, Georgia imposed no restraint on the exhibition of the films involved in this case until after a full adversary proceeding and a final judicial determination by the Georgia Supreme Court that the materials were constitutionally unprotected. [5] Thus the standards of Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U. S. 410, 417 (1971); Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U. S. 139, 141-142 (1968); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 58-59 (1965), and Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, supra, at 443-445 , were met.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sanders v. McAuliffe
N.D. Ga. · 1973 · confidence medium
Thus the standards of Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410, 417 [ 91 S.Ct. 423, 428 , 27 L.Ed.2d 498 ] (1971); Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139, 141-142 [ 88 S.Ct. 754, 755-756 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 ] (1968); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58-59 [ 85 S.Ct. 734, 738-739 , 13 L.Ed.2d 649 ] (1965), and Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, supra, 354 U.S., at 443-445 [ 77 S.Ct., at 1328-1330 ] (1957), were met.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Peto v. Cook
S.D. Ohio · 1973 · confidence medium
See Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U. S. 410, 419-421 (1971); Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusak, 390 U. S. 139, 141-142 (1968); Bantam Books, Inc., v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 70-71 (1963). [footnote omitted] Heller v. New York, supra, at 6 (slip opinion).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Heller v. New York (2×)
SCOTUS · 1973 · confidence medium
See Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U. S. 410, 419-421 (1971); Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U. S. 139, 141-142 (1968); Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 70-71 (1963).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McGuire v. Roebuck
E.D. Tex. · 1972 · confidence medium
This calls to mind Justice Harlan’s observation in his concurring opinion in Shuttlesworth, 394 U.S., at 162 , 89 S.Ct., at 944 : “The right to assemble peaceably to voice political protest is at least as basic as the right to exhibit a motion picture which may have some aesthetic value.” In Teitel Film Corporation v. Cusack, supra, 390 U.S., at 142, 88 S.Ct., at 756 , it was held that: “The absence of any provision for a prompt judicial decision by the trial court violated the standard that . . . the procedure must also assure a prompt final judicial decision . . .”
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs (2×)
SCOTUS · 1971 · confidence medium
Subsequently, we invalidated Chicago's motion picture censorship ordinance because it permitted an unduly long administrative procedure before the invocation of judicial action and also because the ordinance, although requiring prompt resort to the courts after administrative decision and an early hearing, did not assure "a prompt judicial decision of the question of the alleged obscenity of the film." Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U. S. 139, 141 (1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Byrne v. Karalexis (2×)
SCOTUS · 1971 · confidence medium
Clearly, he was not required to continue to stay his hand pending the outcome of appeals from the convictions; Freedman was satisfied by a "prompt judicial decision by the trial court, " Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U. S. 139, 142 (1968) (emphasis supplied); Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 390 U. S. 676 , 690 n. 22 (1968).
examined Cited "see" Defense Distributed v. United States Department of State (3×)
5th Cir. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139, 141 , 88 S.Ct. 754, 756 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968).
examined Cited "see" Irvin Dana Beal and Robert B. MacDonald v. Henry Stern, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (3×)
2d Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139, 141-42 , 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968) (50- to 57-day administrative process period prior to judicial review not “a specified brief period”). 11 .
examined Cited "see" Poe v. City of Humble, Texas (3×)
S.D. Tex. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusak, 390 U.S. 139 , 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968) (a city must within a “brief period, either issue a license or go to court to restrain” the contested activity).
examined Cited "see" Ellwest Stereo Theatres, Inc. v. Nichols (3×)
M.D. Fla. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Teitel Film *863 Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 [ 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 ] (1968).
cited Cited "see" General Corp. v. State Ex Rel. Sweeton
Ala. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, supra, 390 U.S. at 682-685 , 88 S.Ct. [1298], at 1302-1305.
examined Cited "see" Medrano v. Allee (3×)
S.D. Tex. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 , 85 S.Ct. 734 , 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965) and Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 , 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968).
examined Cited "see" Grove Press, Inc. v. Bailey (3×)
N.D. Ala. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 1968, 390 U.S. 139, n. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 ; Entertainment Ventures, Inc. v. Brewer, M.D.
examined Cited "see" Astro Cinema Corp. Inc., John Justin and Jess Rockman v. Thomas J. MacKell District Attorney of Queens County (3×)
2d Cir. · 1970 · signal: accord · confidence high
See also Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 , 85 S.Ct. 734 , 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965) ; accord Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusak, 390 U.S. 139 , 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968) (per curiam).
examined Cited "see" Grove Press, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia (3×)
E.D. Pa. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See, NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415 , 83 S.Ct. 328 , 9 L.Ed.2d 405 *290 (1963), and Bantam Books, supra. They urge that this means that quick and effective federal judicial remedies must be granted parties whose exercise of First Amendment rights is challenged either by a state’s allegedly unconstitutional procedures in interfering with those rights, see, e. g., Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 , 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968), and Freedman, supra, or by a state’s allegedly unconstitutional substantive standards for measuring the legality of the exercise of those rights.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Twitter, Inc. v. Merrick Garland
9th Cir. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence low
Thus, the Court has applied Freedman to customs officials’ seizing “obscene or immoral” articles, United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs, 402 U.S. 363 , 365 & n.1, 366–68, 373–75 (1971), the postmaster’s halting mail that contains “allegedly obscene materials,” Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410 , 411–14, 417–19 (1971), a board’s requiring permission before showing an allegedly obscene play at a municipal theater, Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 , 547–48, 559–62 (1975), and a court’s ex parte restraining order that prevented a planned rally …
examined Cited "see, e.g." Gospel Missions of America v. Bennett (3×)
C.D. Cal. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
Freedman, 380 U.S. at 59 , 85 S.Ct. at 739 ; see also Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139, 141 , 88 S.Ct. 754, 755-56 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968) (per curiam) (holding that a period of 50 to 57 days to complete an administrative permit process did not meet the constitutional standard requiring that the official either license, or go to court to restrain, film exhibition within a specified brief period). 17 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Skyywalker Records, Inc. v. Navarro (3×)
S.D. Fla. · 1990 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Teitel Films Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 , 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968) (procedure deficient where no time limit in which judge must issue final order after trial).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Entertainment Concepts, Inc. v. Maciejewski (3×)
7th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 , 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968) (no provision for prompt judicial decision).
examined Cited "see, e.g." ca7 1980 (3×)
7th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 , 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968) (no provision for prompt judicial decision). 48 The ordinance does not contain the vice of prohibiting the showing of any particular films or restraining exhibition because the Movie Review Board reviews only "publicly exhibited" films.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Anthony Herbert v. Barry Lando, Mike Wallace, Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., Atlantic Monthly Company, Barry Lando, Mike Wallace and Cbs Inc. (3×)
2d Cir. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 , 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 , 85 S.Ct. 734 , 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965).
examined Cited "see, e.g." States Marine Lines, Inc. v. George P. Shultz, Secretary of the Treasury (3×)
4th Cir. · 1974 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 , 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1967); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 , 85 S.Ct. 734 , 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1964); Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 , 83 S.Ct. 631 , 9 L.Ed.2d 584 (1962).
examined Cited "see, e.g." G. I. Distributors, Inc. v. Murphy (3×)
2d Cir. · 1972 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 , 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968); Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410 , 91 S.Ct. 423 , 27 L.Ed.2d 498 (1971).
examined Cited "see, e.g." G. I. Distributors, Inc. v. Murphy (3×)
2d Cir. · 1972 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 , 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968); Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410 , 91 S.Ct. 423 , 27 L.Ed.2d 498 (1971). 10 Last term the Supreme Court spelled out for the first time a set of specific requirements which would meet, in at least one factual context, the standards laid down in Freedman.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Devlin v. Sosbe (3×)
7th Cir. · 1972 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 , 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 , 85 S.Ct. 734 , 13 L.Ed. 2d 649 (1965); Metzger v. Pearcy, 393 F.2d 202 (7th Cir. 1968).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Devlin v. Sosbe (3×)
7th Cir. · 1972 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 , 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 , 85 S.Ct. 734 , 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965); Metzger v. Pearcy, 393 F.2d 202 (7th Cir. 1968).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Sellers v. Regents of University (3×)
9th Cir. · 1970 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 , 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968); Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 , 83 S.Ct. 631 , 9 L.Ed.2d 584 (1963).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Sellers v. Regents of University of California (3×)
9th Cir. · 1970 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 , 88 S.Ct. 754 , 19 L.Ed.2d 966 (1968); Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 , 83 S.Ct. 631 , 9 L.Ed.2d 584 (1963).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Fine Arts Guild, Inc. v. City of Seattle (4×)
Wash. · 1968 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 , 19 L.
TEITEL FILM CORP. Et Al.
v.
CUSACK Et Al., MEMBERS OF THE MOTION PICTURE APPEAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO
787.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 29, 1968.
390 U.S. 139
Elmer Gertz and Leon N. Miller for appellants., Raymond F. Simon and Marvin E. Aspen for appellees.
Black, Douglas, Freedman, York, Harlan.
Cited by 138 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

This appeal seeks review of judgments of the Supreme Court of Illinois which affirmed orders of the Circuit Court of Cook County permanently enjoining the appellants from showing certain motion pictures in public places in the City of Chicago, 38 Ill. 2d 53, 230 N. E. 2d 241. The questions presented are whether the Chicago Motion Picture Censorship Ordinance is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, and whether the films involved are obscene. [1]

[*140] The Chicago Motion Picture Censorship Ordinance prohibits the exhibition in any public place of “any picture . . . without first having secured a permit therefor from the superintendent of police.” The Superintendent is required “within three days of receipt” of films to “inspect such . . . films ... or cause them to be inspected by the Film Review Section . . . and within three days after such inspection” either to grant or deny the permit. [2] If the permit is denied the exhibitor may within seven days seek review by the Motion Picture Appeal Board. The Appeal Board must review the film within 15 days of the request for review, and thereafter within 15 days afford the exhibitor, his agent or distributor a hearing. The Board must serve the applicant with written notice of its ruling within five days after close of the hearing. If the Board denies the permit, “the Board, within ten days from the hearing, shall file with the Circuit Court of Cook County an action for an injunction against the showing of the film.” A Circuit Court Rule, General Order 3-3, promulgated May 26, 1965, provides that a “complaint for injunction . . . shall be given priority over all other causes. The Court shall set the cause for hearing within five (5) days after the defendant has answered . ...” [3] However, neither the rule nor any[*141] statutory or other provision assures a prompt judicial decision of the question of the alleged obscenity of the film.

The Illinois Supreme Court held “that the administration of the Chicago Motion Picture Ordinance violates no constitutional rights of the defendants.” 38 Ill. 2d, at 63, 230 N. E. 2d, at 247. We disagree. In Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 58-59, we held “. . . that a noncriminal process which requires the prior submission of a film to a censor avoids constitutional infirmity only if it takes place under procedural safeguards designed to obviate the dangers of a censorship system. ... To this end, the exhibitor must be assured, by statute or authoritative judicial construction, that the censor will, within a specified brief period, either issue a license or go to court to restrain showing the film. ... [T]he procedure must also assure a prompt-final judicial decision, to minimize the deterrent effect of an interim and possibly erroneous denial of a license.” (Emphasis supplied.) The Chicago censorship procedures violate these standards in two respects. (1) The 50 to 57 days provided by the ordinance to complete the administrative process before initiation of the judicial proceeding does not satisfy the standard that the procedure must assure “that the censor will, within a specified brief period, either[*142] issue a license or go to court to restrain showing the film.” (2) The absence of any provision for a prompt judicial decision by the trial court violates the standard that “. . . the procedure must also assure a prompt final judicial decision . . . .”

Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the Supreme Court of Illinois and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas, agreeing that Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 58-59, requires reversal of this case, base their reversal also on Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the result. Mr. Justice Stewart bases his concurrence in this judgment upon Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.
1

In light of our decision, we do not reach, and intimate no view upon, the question whether the films are obscene.

2

The ordinance was amended during the pendency of the case before the Illinois Supreme Court to require inspection within three days after submission of the films. The members of the Superintendent’s Film Review Section, upon his request, “review each motion picture submitted and . . . recommend in writing to the superintendent of police whether to grant or deny a permit.”

3

Comments of the trial judge in this case suggest doubt whether the trial court regarded compliance with this rule to be mandatory:

“Mr. Aspen [counsel for the City]: As far as the Court is concerned, it is my understand [sic] that Judge Boyle in General Rule[*141] 3-3, which has nothing to do with the ordinance has said there will be a hearing within five days of either the filing of an answer—

“The Court: I am going to have it changed because we just cannot set everything aside to give priority to this kind of litigation.

“The Court: First amendment matters cannot be anymore important than any other constitutional right or any other citizen's right to have his case heard.

“As I said before, it is far more important in my judgment to take care of the broken heads and fractured legs than it is to take care of the bleeding hearts.”