Sequoia Books, Inc. v. Dallas Ingemunson, in His Capacity as State's Attorney of Kendall County, Illinois, and Kendall County, Illinois

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “special flexibility, or ‘breathing room,’ . . . attaches to standing doctrine in the First Amendment context”
• comparing the scope of forfeiture permitted by Illinois law and by federal RICO
• “The in terrorem effects of which Sequoia complains are simply the intended by-product of a legislative decision to punish those who deal in obscene materials and to make that business more costly.”
• post-trial forfeiture under Illi nois obscenity statute does not violate the First Amendment because “Illinois does not attempt here to regulate the sale of protected reading materials or to close bookstores. It merely punishes past obscenity convictions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).