PINKUS, DBA ROSSLYN NEWS CO. ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Gulf Water Benefaction Co. v. The Pub. Util. Comm'n OF Tex. & the State of Tex., 674 F.2d 462 (5th Cir. 1982)
  …rts; and, as in the present action, federal judicial review is particularly inappropriate where state proceedings are pending. See Brideport Hydraulic Co. v. Council on Water Co. Lands of State of Conn., 453 F.Supp. 942, 954 (D.C.Conn.1977), aff’d., 439 U.S. 999, 99 S.Ct. 606, 58 L.Ed.2d 674 (1978); City of Meridian, Miss. v. Mississippi Valley Gas Co., 214 F. 2d 525, 526 (5th Cir. 1954). In the ancillary adversary proceeding (Adversary G), debtor-appellant attempted to invoke the bankruptcy court’s jurisd…
• Baltimore GAS & Elec. Co. & BGE Corp. v. Heintz, 760 F.2d 1408 (4th Cir. 1985)
  …e of section 24(e) is legitimate. The primary justification for the state’s authority to regulate public utilities under the police power, see Bridgeport Hydraulic v. Council on Water Company Lands, 453 F.Supp. 942, 951 (1977) aff'd without opinion, 439 U.S. 999, 99 S.Ct. 606, 58 L.Ed.2d 674 (1978), is to ensure continued fiscal responsibility and the ability of the utility to continue to render service in order to protect consumers of the public service company’s product. See Pacific Gas & Elec. v. Energy…
• United States v. Petrov, 747 F.2d 824 (2d Cir. 1984)
  …in counts 2, 3, , 5, and 6 is to be judged. A key issue in any obscenity case is the degree of community acceptance or toleration of materials similar to those at issue. See United States v. Pinkus, 579 F. 2d 1174, 1175 (9th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 439 U.S. 999, 99 S.Ct. 605, 58 L.Ed.2d 674 (1978); United States v. Womack, 509 F. 2d 368, 376-78 (D.C.Cir.1974), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1022, 95 S.Ct. 2644, 45 L.Ed.2d 681 (1975). To establish that some or all of the photographs did not offend community standar…