Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Roth, 74 So. 2d 392.

15 citing documents.

State v. Roger 616 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Defrances 351 So. 2d 133 La. 1977
(1954); State v. Fulmer, 250 La.
State v. Brown 288 So. 2d 339 La. 1974
534 , (1963); , (1954); Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 , 47 S.Ct.
State v. Thornton 284 So. 2d 753 La. 1973
State v. Smith 275 So. 2d 733 La. 1973
439 , (1953) (obscenitybut see on retrial, , (1954)); State v. Davis, 214 La.
State v. Gay Times, Inc. 274 So. 2d 162 La. 1973
State v. Willis 221 So. 2d 39 La. 1969
The words ‘sexually immoral,’ as held in the Roth case [ , ], ‘have an accepted meaning that is not *897 susceptible to misunderstanding.’ We; therefore conclude the statute is constitutional and that the trial judge erroneously sustained the motion to quash.” We conclude that our decision in the Fulmer case, supra, was correct and that its reasoning controls t
State v. Lewis 217 So. 2d 381 La. 1968
In an indictment •charging any of these offenses it is not -necessary to set forth the particular acts •constituting the elements of the crime, and -there is no sound reason why an informa-tion couched in the language of Article 81 •of the Criminal Code should not be similarly -.regarded.” Again, , , State v. Esposito, 226 La.
State v. Fulmer 193 So. 2d 774 La. 1967
14:106(2) by simply adding the word “sexually” before “indecent print;” and, as thus amended and re-enacted, , .
State v. Richard 158 So. 2d 828 La. 1963
322 ; , ; and State v. Saibold, 213 La.
State v. Cade 153 So. 2d 382 La. 1963
[6] , ; State v. Saibold, 213 La.
State v. Hertzog 131 So. 2d 788 La. 1961
State v. Roufa 129 So. 2d 743 La. 1961
472 , ; , ; Roth v. United States, supra.
State v. Murtes 94 So. 2d 446 La. 1957
472 , , , are pertinent to and controlling in the case at bar.
State v. Esposito 75 So. 2d 27 La. 1954
This same question was raised and decided in the case of State v. Roth, La., .