Fox Film Corporation's Application
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
The court, in so far as the present issue is concerned, is considering a remedial statute which is “to receive a liberal construction so as to accomplish the legislative purpose: Com. v. Shaleen, 215 Pa. 595; Goldwyn Distributing Corp., 265 Pa. 335. Upon appeal from the decision of the board declining to approve a motion picture, the sole inquiry is whether the board acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, and in such a way as to amount to an abuse of discretion.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Frazer,
This controversy has arisen over the refusal of the Pennsylvania State Board of Censors to approve, for public exhibition purposes, a motion picture film proposed to be displayed on a motion picture screen by the Fox Film Company, appellee here. The company made application to the board for approval of the film upon which was a recordation of spoken language, such application being a requirement of the Act of May 15, 1915, P. L. 534, by which law the board was created and vested with authority to exercise designated administrative duties and powers for regulation…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Newman v. ArthurSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Commonwealth v. Quaker City Cab Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Buffalo Branch, Mutual Film Corp. v. BreitingerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Stull v. ReberSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- In re Franklin Film Manufacturing Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
3Cited by11 opinions
- Cain v. BowlbyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1940
- State v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of Florida · 1951
- Philadelphia Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Philadelphia Ret. Liq. Deal. v. Pa. Liq. Bd.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Bruce Transfer Co. v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1939
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.