Legal Opinion
Turoso v. Cleveland Municipal Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided February 4, 1982No. Nos. 80-3696, 80-3728, 80-3742, 80-3743, 80-3817 and 81-3127PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ENGEL, Circuit Judge.
In these six consolidated appeals, four habeas corpus petitioners assert that their convictions were invalid because the Ohio obscenity statute under which they were charged is constitutionally overbroad and vague. It is vague, they claim, because its language is confusing and fails to apprise them and others of what conduct is proscribed by the statute. It is overbroad, they claim, because it proscribes conduct which is protected expression under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
*488We are presented in these appeals with no other issues, although others were raised in…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Cupp v. NaughtenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Henderson v. KibbeSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Ward v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- State v. BurgunOhio Supreme Court · 1978
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Zalman v. ArmstrongCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1986
- City of Urbana ex rel. Newlin v. DowningOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- Zalman v. ArmstrongCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1986
- State v. WolfeOhio Court of Appeals · 1987
- Edward A. Janicki and Edward W. Zoltaszek, Cross-Appellees v. Frank Pizza, Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.