ONE, INCORPORATED,

v.

OLESEN, POSTMASTER OF LOS ANGELES

Citator

Cited By (19 total)

• N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964)
  …were made to see . . . whether they are of a character which the principles of the First Amendment, as adopted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protect.” Penne-kamp v. Florida, 328 U. S. 331, 335; see also One, Inc., v. Olesen, 355 U. S. 371; Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield, 355 U. S. 372. We must “make an independent examination of the whole record,” Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229, 235, so as to assure ourselves that the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on…
• Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (U.S. 1984)
  …y were made to see . . . whether they are of a character which the principles of the First Amendment, as adopted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protect.’ Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U. S. 331, 335; see also One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U. S. 371; Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield, 355 U. S. 372. We must ‘make an independent examination of the whole record,’ Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229, 235, so as to assure ourselves that the judgment does not constitute a forbidden instrusion on…
• Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (U.S. 1964)
  …ly prosecuted unless the exaggerated character of the advertising rather than the obscenity of the film is to be the constitutional criterion. Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago, 355 U. S. 35, reversing 244 F. 2d 432; One, Incorporated, v. Olesen, 355 U. S. 371, reversing 241 F. 2d 772; Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield, 355 U. S. 372, reversing 101 U. S. App. D. C. 358, 249 F. 2d 114; Manual Enterprises v. Day, 370 U. S. 478 (opinion of Harlan, J.). Cf. People v, Richmond County News, 9 N. Y. 2d 578, 175…

  ← 1 / 2 →

Authorities Cited

• Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (U.S. 1957)