State v. Keyhole Publishing Co.
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the CourtJacobs, J.
For nearly one hundred and fifty years, or at least as far back as 1824, Connecticut has had on its books a criminal antiobscenity statute.1 In 1963, the General Assembly enacted legislation (General Statutes §§ 53-244a to 53-244m), supplementing existing criminal sanctions (§ 53-243) and authorizing the use of civil remedies, by way of limited injunctive relief under judicially controlled safeguards, designed and calculated to control at the source2 the sale and distribution of “mailable *356matter,”3 or printed or written matter or material,4 found, after trial, to be obscene5; provision is…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Jacobellis v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. DaySupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents of the UniversitySupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. CiminoConnecticut Superior Court · 1976
- State v. MageeConnecticut Superior Court · 1975
- State v. CiminoConnecticut Superior Court · 1976
- State v. MageeConnecticut Superior Court · 1975
- State v. OnoratoConnecticut Appellate Court · 1965