Court v. State
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Appellate review.
While Miller v. California, supra, and following cases expressly stated
“. . . [t]he First Amendment values applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment are adequately *573protected by the ultimate power of appellate courts to conduct an independent review of constitutional claims when necessary.” Id. at page 25.
Miller failed to expressly state the nature and scope of such an independent review. As a result of this void in Miller, two theories have arisen as to the nature and scope of the independent review. One theory holds that the independent appellate review must…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Thornhill v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Jacobellis v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. PetroneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. Princess Cinema of Milwaukee, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
- City of Madison v. NickelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
- State v. HarroldNebraska Supreme Court · 1999
- People v. TabronSupreme Court of Colorado · 1976
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.