Miller v California

8 similar searches for Miller v California

Receive alerts:
by e-mail
E-mail Your information will be added to a database with the sole purpose of serving your subscription. This database is the exclusive property of vLex Networks S.L. and will never be shared with any other company. By sending your request you accept the Data Protection Policy of vLex Networks S.L. I have read and accept the Terms of Use
via RSS

More than 10.000 documents for Miller v California

- Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
U.S. Supreme Court MILLER v. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) 413 U.S. 15 MILLER v. CALIFORNIA APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT, SUPERIOR COURT ...
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Miller v. California, 392 U.S. 616 (per curiam) (1968)
U.S. Supreme Court MILLER v. CALIFORNIA, 392 U.S. 616 (1968) 392 U.S. 616 MILLER v. CALIFORNIA. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, F...
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Miller v. California
Arguably the most important in a series of late-twentieth-century Supreme Court cases laying down the definition of ...
- West's Encyclopedia of American Law
- Mc–Pl

- Posters Constitutional
In her Sept. 1 letter, Valerie Cartonio questions the right of pro-lifers to expose her to the disgusting photo posters of aborted babies "The Constitution does not permit government to decide which types of otherwise protected speech are sufficiently offensive to require protection for the unwilling listener or viewer" (Erznoznik, 422 U.S. 210). Rather, the burden rests with the viewer to "avoid further bombardment of (his) sensibilities simply by averting (his) eyes" (Cohen v. California). The U.S. Supreme Court is clear on this: Content- and viewpoint- based restrictions of speech are unconstitutional. Therefore, the government cannot restrict a pro-life demonstrator's speech because of the content of her sign or the message it conveys. Obscenity is speech that appeals to one's prur...
- Bangor Daily News
- September 13, 2010
- MILLER V THE CALIFORNIA, (9th Cir. 2008)
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT MILLER, ...
- Federal Circuits
- Miller v. California, 365 U.S. 568 (per curiam) (1961)
U.S. Supreme Court CITY OF KANSAS CITY v. UNITED STATES, 365 U.S. 568 (1961) 365 U.S. 568 CITY OF KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET ...
- U.S. Supreme Court
- United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.-Sexually Explicit Signal Bleed and § 505 of the CDA: Unable to Overcome Strict Scrutiny...But Will Strict Scrutiny be Able to Overcome the Future?
Introduction. II. Relevant Precedent. A. Miller v. California. B. Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation. C. Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. D. Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. FCC. E. Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC. III. United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, INC. A. Procedural Background. B. Factual Background. 1. Sexually Oriented Cable Programming and the Phenomenon of Signal Bleed. 2. Section 505 of the Communications Decency Act. 3. Section 504 of the Communications Decency Act. C. The Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 505. 1. The Majority Opinion. a. Constitutional Standard: Strict Scrutiny. b. Section 505 Fails to Satisfy Strict Scrutiny. c. The Government Failed to Show that Signal Bleed is a Pervas...
- Capital University Law Review
- Nbr. 30-4, December 2002
- Charles W. Miller; Patricia A. Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of California, Department of Social Services, Defendant, and Yuba County Human Services Agency; Child Protective Services; Evelyn Joslin; Mike Noda; Phyllis Bullard; Penny Elliott; Ginny Tuscano, Defendants-Appellees., 355 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2004)
Roderick L. MacKenzie, MacKenzie & Brody, Sacramento, California, for the plaintiffs-appellants. Jennifer E. Duggan, Terence J. Cassidy, Avery E. Dor...
- Federal Circuits
- Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973) Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton 413 U.S. 49 (1973)
For the first time since ROTH V. UNITED STATES (1957), a Supreme Court maj...
- Encyclopedia of the American Constitution
- KA-PU
- 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2375, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3950 Wmx Technologies, Inc., F/K/A/ Waste Management, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; and Waste Management of California, Inc., a California Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Edwin L. Miller, Jr., as District Attorney of San Diego County, California, Defendant-Appellee., 80 F.3d 1315 (9th Cir. 1996)
Robert H. Friebert and Matthew W. O'Neill, Friebert, Finerty & St. John, S.C., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Gerald L. McMahon and David J. Zubkoff, Seltz...
- Federal Circuits