Summary
In Roth the court also considered whether the power to punish obscenity was reserved to the states by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; in Alberts it considered whether the federal statute regulating the mailing of obscene matter preempted regulation by the states.
Summary of this case from Zeitlin v. ArneberghOpinion
No. 15627.
September 15, 1956.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.
John C. Farrar, Rapid City, S.D., for appellant.
Clinton G. Richards, U.S. Atty., and Lyle E. Cheever, Asst. U.S. Atty., Sioux Falls, S.D., for appellee.
Appeal from District Court dismissed, on motion of appellee.