DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Amato, 343 So. 2d 698.

19 citing documents.

  • State Of Louisiana v. William Wayne Lee, Jr. La. 2023
    5/15/01), (defendant filed a motion to quash claiming the statute defining the offense alleged was unconstitutionally vague); (La.
  • State v. Brenan 772 So. 2d 64 La. 2000
    (citing Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 105 , 94 S.Ct.
  • Airline Adult Video v. St. Charles Parish Council 609 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
    rishes, and consolidated city-parish governments; however, in order to promote uniform obscenity legislation throughout the state, the regulation of obscenity by municipalities, parishes, and consolidated city-parish governments shall not exceed the scope of the regulatory prohibitions contained in the provisions of this Section.” (Emphasis Supplied) approved the statutes’s unrestricted use of the term “contemporary community standards” and “patently offense way” without further specification.
  • State v. Video Joe, Inc. 578 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Honore 564 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
    See *351 for example, (La.App.
  • State v. Russland Enterprises 555 So. 2d 1365 La. 1990
    [3] the defendants contended that La.R.S.
  • State v. Morgan 553 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • State v. Valdes 552 So. 2d 1372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    sex and obscenity are not synonymous, and nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene.
  • State v. Russland Enterprises 548 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    the Louisiana Supreme Court tracked the language of the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 , 94 S.Ct.
  • State v. LeBlang 530 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    In upholding the Louisiana obscenity statute against a challenge that it was Constitutionally vague for failure to define community standards, as follows: Furthermore, in Miller and the cases following it the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that a state may choose to define an obscenity offense in terms of “contemporary community standards” without further specification, as Louisiana has done, thus permitting juries to rely on the und
  • State v. Louisiana Toy Co., Inc. 483 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    1304 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957)
  • State v. Price 475 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Instruction 4 setting out the community standard to be statewide is not correct under our jurisprudence, quoting Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 , 94 S.Ct.
  • State v. Peacock 461 So. 2d 1040 La. 1984
    A that the new 14:106 did indeed conform to the constitutional safeguards laid down in Miller v. California, supra.
  • State v. Jacobson 459 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    [9] a case involving review of works and materials, the Court noted that although the "female breast nipple" was not one of the examples of human anatomy mentioned by the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. California it was sufficiently similar.
  • State v. Echols 376 So. 2d 1244 La. 1979
    Similarly, we held that the same provision satisfies the notice requirements of the federal constitution.
  • State v. Wrestle, Inc. 360 So. 2d 831 La. 1978
  • State v. Luck 353 So. 2d 225 La. 1977
  • State v. Windhorst 343 So. 2d 711 La. 1977
    14:106 unconstitutional in an unrelated case, (Docket number 58,619), maintained defendant’s motion here for substantially the same reasons he assigned therein.
  • Distinguished State v. Johnson 343 So. 2d 705 La. 1977