Roth test in Texas

6 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1960–2015 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Andrews v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1983 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 2 sentences 1986We are admonished by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Andrews v. State, 652 S.W.2d 370, 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1983), that the Roth test of obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), has been supplanted by Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 , 93 S.Ct. 2607 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), which emphasizes the identification of material describing ultimate sexual acts and not whether the dominant theme of the material is without social value: [I]t is the identification of material that now becomes important, and not the value of the material, except that the mater 1986We are admonished by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Andrews v. State, 652 S.W.2d 370, 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1983), that the Roth test of obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), has been supplanted by Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 , 93 S.Ct. 2607 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), which emphasizes the identification of material describing ultimate sexual acts and not whether the dominant theme of the material is without social value: [I]t is the identification of material that now becomes important, and not the value of the material, except that the mater	1	1
Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th Street, Kansas City v. Marcusgreen mo · 1960 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1960–1960 2 sentences 1960Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; People v. Brooklyn News Co., 12 Misc.2d 768 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 813 ." The Roth test has been consistently recognized, as shown by the following cases: Alexander v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 140, 145-146 ; Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th St., etc. v. Marcus, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 119, 123-124 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Hendricks, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 392, 394-398 ; Capitol Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir, 1958, 260 F.2d 670, 673-674 ; Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 433, 437 ; Empir 1960Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; People v. Brooklyn News Co., 12 Misc.2d 768 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 813 ." The Roth test has been consistently recognized, as shown by the following cases: Alexander v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 140, 145-146 ; Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th St., etc. v. Marcus, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 119, 123-124 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Hendricks, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 392, 394-398 ; Capitol Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir, 1958, 260 F.2d 670, 673-674 ; Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 433, 437 ; Empir	1	1
Empire Pictures Distributing Company, Inc., and Kingsley International Pictures Corporation v. City of Fort Worthgreen ca5 · 1960 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1960–1960 2 sentences 1960Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; People v. Brooklyn News Co., 12 Misc.2d 768 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 813 ." The Roth test has been consistently recognized, as shown by the following cases: Alexander v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 140, 145-146 ; Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th St., etc. v. Marcus, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 119, 123-124 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Hendricks, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 392, 394-398 ; Capitol Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir, 1958, 260 F.2d 670, 673-674 ; Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 433, 437 ; Empir 1960Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; People v. Brooklyn News Co., 12 Misc.2d 768 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 813 ." The Roth test has been consistently recognized, as shown by the following cases: Alexander v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 140, 145-146 ; Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th St., etc. v. Marcus, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 119, 123-124 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Hendricks, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 392, 394-398 ; Capitol Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir, 1958, 260 F.2d 670, 673-674 ; Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 433, 437 ; Empir	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (14)

Case	Cited	Years
Roth v. United States green scotus · 1957 2 sentences 1986We are admonished by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Andrews v. State, 652 S.W.2d 370, 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1983), that the Roth test of obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), has been supplanted by Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 , 93 S.Ct. 2607 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), which emphasizes the identification of material describing ultimate sexual acts and not whether the dominant theme of the material is without social value: [I]t is the identification of material that now becomes important, and not the value of the material, except that the mater 1986We are admonished by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Andrews v. State, 652 S.W.2d 370, 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1983), that the Roth test of obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), has been supplanted by Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 , 93 S.Ct. 2607 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), which emphasizes the identification of material describing ultimate sexual acts and not whether the dominant theme of the material is without social value: [I]t is the identification of material that now becomes important, and not the value of the material, except that the mater	2	1960–1986
Roth v. State green texapp · 1995 1 sentence 2015Id. at 300 .	1	2015–2015
Roth v. Board of Regents of State Colleges green wiwd · 1970 1 sentence 2015The problems that District Court, in partially granting Roth’s motion for are the respective preoccupations of summary judgment, held that the Fourteenth Amendment anthropology, economics, law, required the university to give a hearing **2711 to psychology, sociology and related teachers whose contracts were not to be renewed and to areas of scholarship are merely give reasons for its action. 310 F.Supp. 972, 983 .	1	2015–2015
David E. Roth, for Himself and for All Others Similarly Situated v. The Board of Regents of State Colleges and Roger E. Guiles green ca7 · 1971 1 sentence 2015The departmentalized dealing, by way of Court of Appeals affirmed. 446 F.2d 806 . manageable division of analysis, with interpenetrating aspects of holistic Professor Will Herberg, of Drew University, in writing of perplexities.	1	2015–2015
Miller v. California green scotus · 1973 2 sentences 1986We are admonished by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Andrews v. State, 652 S.W.2d 370, 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1983), that the Roth test of obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), has been supplanted by Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 , 93 S.Ct. 2607 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), which emphasizes the identification of material describing ultimate sexual acts and not whether the dominant theme of the material is without social value: [I]t is the identification of material that now becomes important, and not the value of the material, except that the mater 1986We are admonished by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Andrews v. State, 652 S.W.2d 370, 379 (Tex.Crim.App.1983), that the Roth test of obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), has been supplanted by Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 , 93 S.Ct. 2607 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), which emphasizes the identification of material describing ultimate sexual acts and not whether the dominant theme of the material is without social value: [I]t is the identification of material that now becomes important, and not the value of the material, except that the mater	1	1986–1986
Jacobellis v. Ohio green scotus · 1964 2 sentences 1980Id. at 200-01, 84 S.Ct. at 1685 . 1980Id. at 200-01, 84 S.Ct. at 1685 .	1	1980–1980
Ginzburg v. United States green scotus · 1966 2 sentences 1972Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 471 , 86 S.Ct. 942, 947 , 16 L.Ed.2d 31 (1966). 1972Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 471 , 86 S.Ct. 942, 947 , 16 L.Ed.2d 31 (1966).	1	1972–1972
Smith v. California green scotus · 1960 2 sentences 1960Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; People v. Brooklyn News Co., 12 Misc.2d 768 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 813 ." The Roth test has been consistently recognized, as shown by the following cases: Alexander v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 140, 145-146 ; Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th St., etc. v. Marcus, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 119, 123-124 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Hendricks, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 392, 394-398 ; Capitol Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir, 1958, 260 F.2d 670, 673-674 ; Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 433, 437 ; Empir 1960Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; People v. Brooklyn News Co., 12 Misc.2d 768 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 813 ." The Roth test has been consistently recognized, as shown by the following cases: Alexander v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 140, 145-146 ; Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th St., etc. v. Marcus, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 119, 123-124 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Hendricks, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 392, 394-398 ; Capitol Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir, 1958, 260 F.2d 670, 673-674 ; Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 433, 437 ; Empir	1	1960–1960
Schwartz v. Lubin green nysupct · 1958 2 sentences 1960Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; People v. Brooklyn News Co., 12 Misc.2d 768 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 813 ." The Roth test has been consistently recognized, as shown by the following cases: Alexander v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 140, 145-146 ; Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th St., etc. v. Marcus, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 119, 123-124 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Hendricks, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 392, 394-398 ; Capitol Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir, 1958, 260 F.2d 670, 673-674 ; Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 433, 437 ; Empir 1960Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; People v. Brooklyn News Co., 12 Misc.2d 768 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 813 ." The Roth test has been consistently recognized, as shown by the following cases: Alexander v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 140, 145-146 ; Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th St., etc. v. Marcus, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 119, 123-124 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Hendricks, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 392, 394-398 ; Capitol Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir, 1958, 260 F.2d 670, 673-674 ; Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 433, 437 ; Empir	1	1960–1960
People v. Brooklyn News Co. green nycountyct · 1958 2 sentences 1960Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; People v. Brooklyn News Co., 12 Misc.2d 768 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 813 ." The Roth test has been consistently recognized, as shown by the following cases: Alexander v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 140, 145-146 ; Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th St., etc. v. Marcus, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 119, 123-124 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Hendricks, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 392, 394-398 ; Capitol Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir, 1958, 260 F.2d 670, 673-674 ; Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 433, 437 ; Empir 1960Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; People v. Brooklyn News Co., 12 Misc.2d 768 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 813 ." The Roth test has been consistently recognized, as shown by the following cases: Alexander v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 140, 145-146 ; Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th St., etc. v. Marcus, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 119, 123-124 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Hendricks, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 392, 394-398 ; Capitol Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir, 1958, 260 F.2d 670, 673-674 ; Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 433, 437 ; Empir	1	1960–1960
Eastman Kodak Company, a Corporation v. John C. Hendricks green ca9 · 1958 2 sentences 1960Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; People v. Brooklyn News Co., 12 Misc.2d 768 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 813 ." The Roth test has been consistently recognized, as shown by the following cases: Alexander v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 140, 145-146 ; Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th St., etc. v. Marcus, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 119, 123-124 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Hendricks, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 392, 394-398 ; Capitol Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir, 1958, 260 F.2d 670, 673-674 ; Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 433, 437 ; Empir 1960Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; People v. Brooklyn News Co., 12 Misc.2d 768 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 813 ." The Roth test has been consistently recognized, as shown by the following cases: Alexander v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 140, 145-146 ; Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th St., etc. v. Marcus, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 119, 123-124 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Hendricks, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 392, 394-398 ; Capitol Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir, 1958, 260 F.2d 670, 673-674 ; Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 433, 437 ; Empir	1	1960–1960
Capitol Enterprises, Inc., a Maryland Corporation v. City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, Richard J. Daley and Timothy J. O'COnnOr green ca7 · 1958 2 sentences 1960Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; People v. Brooklyn News Co., 12 Misc.2d 768 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 813 ." The Roth test has been consistently recognized, as shown by the following cases: Alexander v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 140, 145-146 ; Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th St., etc. v. Marcus, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 119, 123-124 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Hendricks, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 392, 394-398 ; Capitol Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir, 1958, 260 F.2d 670, 673-674 ; Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 433, 437 ; Empir 1960Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; People v. Brooklyn News Co., 12 Misc.2d 768 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 813 ." The Roth test has been consistently recognized, as shown by the following cases: Alexander v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 140, 145-146 ; Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th St., etc. v. Marcus, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 119, 123-124 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Hendricks, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 392, 394-398 ; Capitol Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir, 1958, 260 F.2d 670, 673-674 ; Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 433, 437 ; Empir	1	1960–1960
John Jerome Alexander v. United States green ca8 · 1959 2 sentences 1960Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; People v. Brooklyn News Co., 12 Misc.2d 768 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 813 ." The Roth test has been consistently recognized, as shown by the following cases: Alexander v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 140, 145-146 ; Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th St., etc. v. Marcus, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 119, 123-124 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Hendricks, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 392, 394-398 ; Capitol Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir, 1958, 260 F.2d 670, 673-674 ; Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 433, 437 ; Empir 1960Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; People v. Brooklyn News Co., 12 Misc.2d 768 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 813 ." The Roth test has been consistently recognized, as shown by the following cases: Alexander v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 140, 145-146 ; Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th St., etc. v. Marcus, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 119, 123-124 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Hendricks, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 392, 394-398 ; Capitol Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir, 1958, 260 F.2d 670, 673-674 ; Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 433, 437 ; Empir	1	1960–1960
Grove Press, Inc., and Readers' Subscription, Inc. v. Robert K. Christenberry, Individually and as Postmaster of the City of New York green ca2 · 1960 2 sentences 1960Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; People v. Brooklyn News Co., 12 Misc.2d 768 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 813 ." The Roth test has been consistently recognized, as shown by the following cases: Alexander v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 140, 145-146 ; Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th St., etc. v. Marcus, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 119, 123-124 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Hendricks, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 392, 394-398 ; Capitol Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir, 1958, 260 F.2d 670, 673-674 ; Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 433, 437 ; Empir 1960Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , 77 S.Ct. 1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 ; People v. Brooklyn News Co., 12 Misc.2d 768 , 174 N.Y.S.2d 813 ." The Roth test has been consistently recognized, as shown by the following cases: Alexander v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F.2d 140, 145-146 ; Search Warrant of Property at 5 West 12th St., etc. v. Marcus, Mo., 334 S.W.2d 119, 123-124 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Hendricks, 9 Cir., 1958, 262 F.2d 392, 394-398 ; Capitol Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7 Cir, 1958, 260 F.2d 670, 673-674 ; Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 2 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 433, 437 ; Empir	1	1960–1960

Where else courts name it

NY 11 (1966–2016) WA 11 (1970–2017) MD 11 (1961–1981) CT 10 (1963–2020) CA 10 (1968–2016) IL 9 (1964–2020) MN 7 (1971–1972) WI 6 (1971–2017) TX 6 (1960–2015) FL 5 (1967–1971) OH 4 (1960–2014) NJ 3 (1964–1997) PA 3 (1967–1980) SC 3 (1970–1972) KS 3 (1966–1999) IA 2 (1987–1988) ND 2 (2006–2006) GA 2 (1974–1991) AK 2 (1970–2014) AZ 2 (1966–1986) AL 2 (2008–2013) NE 2 (1964–2006) MI 2 (1970–1972) IN 2 (1971–1984)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check