Legal Opinion
State v. Burgun
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 7, 1978No. Nos. 77-1144, 77-1154, 77-1155, 77-1279PublishedCited by 49 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCelebrezze, J.
I
The appellants have raised seven propositions of law. The first fonr propositions apply to all four appeals. Propositions No. 5 and 6 apply only to State v. Burgun, case No. 77-1144, and likewise proposition No. 7 is concerned solely with State v. Krute, case No. 77-1279.
In their first proposition of law, appellants contend that the definition of obscenity contained in R. C. 2907.01 (F) and incorporated in R. C. 2907.32 (A) (4) is both over-broad and vague and therefore in violation of their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The definition of…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Smith v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Heller v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Roaden v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1973
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- New York v. FerberSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- State v. BloomerOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. HicksOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. MoritzOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- State v. ByrdOhio Supreme Court · 1987
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.