PARIS FOLLIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A PARIS FOLLIES THEATRE A/K/A PARIS THEATRE, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. RICHARD E. GERSTEIN, AS STATE ATTORNEY OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a blanket injunction against showing any other obscene films is improper and must be modified, but affirmed the injunction against showing the specific obscene film found by the trial court.
[1] A judgment enjoining the public showing of motion pictures found to be obscene will be affirmed on appeal.
[2] Challenges to the validity of obscenity statutes have been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants appealed an adverse judgment enjoining them from showing certain motion pictures found to be obscene. The trial court also included a blank…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Obscenity cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is by the defendants below from an adverse judgment enjoining public showing by them, within Dade County, of certain motion pictures found by the trial court to be obscene. Upon consideration thereof upon the record, briefs and argument and the content of the films, the judgment is affirmed, with a modification which is specified below.
Challenges as to the validity of the statute involved have been rejected repeatedly by the Supreme Court. State v. Reese, Fla.1969, 222 So.2d 732; May v. Harper, Fla.1971, 250 So.2d 880; Davidson v. State, Fla.1971, 251 So.2d 841. See also Mitchum v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 298.
The question of whether it is necessary for the state to present testimony of witnesses in order to establish obscenity of a moving picture film, when the character of the film as to obscenity can readily be determined by the court upon viewing it, need not be decided in this case. Here, where testimony was presented pro and con as to whether a certain film was obscene, we reject as being without merit the contention of the appellants that the evidence thereon was insufficient to support the court’s holding of obscenity of the film.
In paragraph numbered six of the “ordered” portion of the judgment, the court enjoined the defendants “from showing or exhibiting any other motion picture films or trailers which are obscene and contrary to Florida Statute 847.011 [F.S.A.] at any of the aforesaid theatres or at any other place or premises within the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida where the public is permitted.”
That blanket injunction provision of the judgment is not proper. A catch-all restraint against showing “obscene” films is not authorized. An injunction so worded does not meet the requirement that the objects of restraint in this connection must be carefully defined. See Mitchem v. State ex rel. Schaub, Fla.1971, 250 So.2d 883, 886. Accordingly, the judgment is modified by eliminating the blanket in-junctive provision contained in paragraph numbered six of the judgment.
Judgment modified and, as modified, affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ART Theatre Enters., Inc. v. State of Fla. ex rel. Richard E. Gerstein, 260 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…ing social value.’ ” We therefore hold that the last mentioned provision of the judgment was not properly included therein. State ex rel. Little Beaver Theatre, Inc. v. Tobin, supra; also see Paris Follies, Inc. v. State ex rel. Gerstein, Fla.App., 259 So. 2d 532, 1972, 3rd D.C.A. As mentioned in the introductory portion of this opinion, the appellant has also filed an appeal from the order directing the Sheriff of Dade County to padlock the premises owned by the corporation. We find no point on appeal or a…
-
Gayety Theatres, Inc. v. State of Fla. ex rel. Richard E. Gerstein, 359 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Mitchem v. State ex rel. Schaub, 250 So. 2d 883 (Fla.1971); Art Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. State ex rel. Gerstein, 260 So. 2d 267 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); Paris Follies, Inc. v. State ex rel. Gerstein, 259 So. 2d 532 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). Affirmed in part; reversed in part.…
Authorities Cited
- Hayes v. Adobe Brick & Supply Co., 222 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1969)
- Mitchem v. State of Fla. ex rel Frank Schaub, 250 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1971)
- Mitchum v. State, 251 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Donn E. Davison v. State, 251 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 1971)
- MAY v. Harper, 250 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 1971)