AM. BOOKSELLERS ASS'N, INC. v. Rendell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• appealing party unsuccessfully argued that obscenity statute was unconstitutionally vague because it was subject to two possible interpretations and Court upheld statute’s constitutionality
• discussing the requirements of representational standing and observing that this Court has implicitly approved the concept
• discussing the requirements of representational standing and observing that this Court has implicitly approved the concept
• upholding statute prohibiting display of sexually explicit materials where minors could see them
• upholding statute prohibiting display of sexually explicit materials where minors could see them
• “incidental restrictions on First Amendment freedoms must be limited to those essential to the furtherance of that interest”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).