Legal Opinion
Freedman v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided February 10, 1964No. [No. 144, September Term, 1963.]PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSybert, J.
In order to test the constitutionality of the Maryland motion picture censorship statute, the appellant invited arrest by exhibiting the motion picture film “Revenge at Daybreak” at a theatre in Baltimore City without first having submitted the film to the Maryland State Board of Motion Picture Censors for approval and licensing, as required by Code (1957), Art. 66A, Sec. 2. 1 He was indicted and tried in the Criminal Court of Baltimore for violation of Sec. 2, and convicted after his timely motions for judgment of acquittal were denied. He now appeals.
The appellant has attempted, both in the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Lovell v. City of GriffinSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Bantam Books, Inc. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdorySupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Staub v. City of BaxleySupreme Court of the United States · 1958
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Freedman v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- DiPino v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
- Newell v. RunnelsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2009
- Bosse v. Baltimore CountyDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2010
- Fine Arts Guild, Inc. v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1968
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.