Legal Opinion

People v. Modern Amusement Co.

Criminal Court of the City of New York

Decided February 13, 1973PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRobert M. Haft, J.

In these separate cases, joined hy the consent of the parties for the purposes of this motion, the individual defendants, officers of the respective corporate defendants, each move to quash subpoenas duces tecum requiring the production of specified motion picture films. The films had been viewed earlier by a Judge of this court who determined that there was reasonable cause to believe them obscene in violation of section 235.05 of the Penal Law. Accordingly, he issued summonses for the appearance of the two corporate defendants, arrest warrants for the three individual defendants and…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  4. Hale v. HenkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  5. Holt v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Taylor v. State Ex Rel. KirkpatrickTennessee Supreme Court · 1975
  2. People v. BrownAppellate Court of Illinois · 1975
  3. People v. S & F Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1974
  4. People v. Winney, New York County Courts1977
  5. State of Tennessee ex rel William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General v. Clayton R. SmartCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API