Almodovar v. Reiner
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
NELSON, Circuit Judge:
Appellants contend that using California’s pandering and prostitution statutes to prevent them from making sexually explicit films violates their federal and state constitutional rights. Because the California Supreme Court had not construed the two statutes as applying to filmmakers, and because a similar challenge is currently before the California Supreme Court, the district court abstained following the doc*1140trine of Railroad Commissioner v. Pullman, 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941). The district court then dismissed the case “because the plaintiffs…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Procunier v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Steffel v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Porter v. JonesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Courthouse News Service v. Michael PlanetCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Ellis v. City of La MesaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- McGinnis v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Smelt v. County of OrangeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.