Legal Opinion
Wayne County Prosecutor v. Doerfler
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided November 29, 1968No. Docket 2,579PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFitzgerald, J.
A quotation from the plaintiff’s reply brief to the defendants’ supplemental brief seems particularly appropriate to set the tenor of this appeal, expressing as it does the miasma into which we descend:
“It was once said that the law is a seamless web. The law is nowhere more seamless than in the area of obscenity. While all courts agree that obscenity is not protected by the first and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, what is obscene or not obscene has traveled the crooked mile from the exposure of the female ankle which was obscene to the exposure of the male and female genitalia…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Sheppard v. MaxwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Prince v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Jacobellis v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Smith v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Kar v. HoganMichigan Supreme Court · 1976
- Vernon Walker Huffman v. United States, Dennis Eugene Pryba v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972
- Elsasser v. American Motors Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1978
- Ferrell v. Vic Tanny International, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984
- State Ex Rel. Wayne Prosecutor v. Diversified Theatrical Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1975
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.