Legal Opinion

In Re Klor

California Supreme Court

Decided July 7, 1966No. Crim. 9124PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.

Petitioner Klor suffered conviction in the Municipal Court of the Los Angeles Judicial District of a violation of Penal Code section 311.2, which proscribes the distribution and exhibition of obscene matter. The Appellate Depart*818ment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, with one judge dissenting, affirmed the judgment, which has since become final. By his application for a writ of habeas corpus petitioner seeks relief from this adjudication.

We consider only the question whether the trial court committed error in instructing the jury that it could find petitioner guilty if it found…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  2. Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  4. West Virginia State Board of Education v. BarnetteSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  5. Olmstead v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Ravin v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1975
  2. In Re BushmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. MyersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
  4. California Housing Finance Agency v. ElliottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  5. In Re BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973

36 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