Salt Lake City v. Piepenburg
Utah Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
ELLETT, Chief Justice:
The appellant operates a film theatre and was charged with and convicted of the crime of exhibiting an obscene motion picture. The charge was made under a city ordinance and conviction had in the City Court. An appeal was then taken to the Third District Court where, upon a trial de novo, the appellant was again convicted. He now appeals to the Supreme Court of Utah where he makes a number of assignments of error, only one of which is cognizable on appeal, to wit: the validity of the ordinance under which he was tried and convicted.
The ordinance defines “obscene…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. LyteUtah Supreme Court · 1930
- Salt Lake City v. LeeUtah Supreme Court · 1916
- Salt Lake City v. PerkinsUtah Supreme Court · 1952
- State v. RobinsonUtah Supreme Court · 1969
- Logan City v. BlotterUtah Supreme Court · 1929
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- State v. TaylorUtah Supreme Court · 1983
- Commonwealth v. AllenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
- Faloona v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.District Court, N.D. Texas · 1985
- State v. HaigUtah Supreme Court · 1978
- In Re HansenUtah Supreme Court · 1978
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.