Legal Opinion

Salt Lake City v. Piepenburg

Utah Supreme Court

Decided October 28, 1977No. 14688PublishedCited by 15 opinions

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

  1. State v. LyteUtah Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Salt Lake City v. LeeUtah Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Salt Lake City v. PerkinsUtah Supreme Court · 1952
  4. State v. RobinsonUtah Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Logan City v. BlotterUtah Supreme Court · 1929

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. State v. TaylorUtah Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Commonwealth v. AllenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
  3. Faloona v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.District Court, N.D. Texas · 1985
  4. State v. HaigUtah Supreme Court · 1978
  5. In Re HansenUtah Supreme Court · 1978

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API