Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Albaugh, K., Regulation of Obscentiy Through Nuisance
Statute and Injunctive Remedies the Prior
Restrainst Dilemma, 19 Wake Forest L. Rev. 7
(1983).

Allen, P., Public Nuisances, Private Lawyers, 5 Cal. Law 10 (Jul. 1985).

Annot., Pornoshops or Similar Places Disseminating as Nuisance, 55 A.L.R. 3d 1134

Obscene Materials
(1974).

Bodensteiner, I. and R. Berg Levinson, Civil Liberties:
Adherence to Established Principles, 58 Chi-Kent L.
Rev. 269 (1982).

Forkosch, Obscenity, Copyright
ght, and the Arts, 10 New.
Eng. L. Rev. 1 (1974).

Gorman, R., The Demise of Civil Nuisance Action in
Obscenity Control, 14 Loy. U. Chỉ L. J. 31 (1982).
Green, R., The Obscenity Defense to Copyright, 69 Ky. L.
J. 161 71980).

Mayo, T., Land Use Control, 33 Syracuse L. Rev. 401 (1982).

McWalters, T., An Attempt to Regulate Pornography Through Civil Rights Legislation: Is It Constitutional?, 16 U. Tol. L. Rev. 231 (1984).

10. Nickerson, S., Injunctions Pursuant to Public Nuisance Obscenity Statutes and the Doctrine of Prior Restraint, 61 Wash. U. L.O. 775 (1983).

11. Note, Community Standards, Class Actions, and Obscenity Under Miller v. California, 88 Harv. L. Rev. 1838 (1975).

12. Note, Immorality, Obscenity and the Law of Copyright, 60 S. Dak. L. Rev. 109 (1961).

13. Note, Private Ratings of Motion Pictures as a Basis for State Regulation, 59 Geo. L.J. 1205 (1971).

14. Obscenity Not a Defense in Copyright Infringement Action, 5 Art. b L. 68 (Spr. 1980).

c.

15. Palumbo, N. Jr., Obscenity and Copyright: An Illustrious Past and Future?, 22 S. Tex. L.J. 87 (Wtr. 1982).

16. Schneider, Authority of the
Deny Registration of a
Ground of Obscenity,
(1975).

Register of Copyrights to Claim to Copyright on the 51 Chi-Kent L. Rev. 691

17. Trachtman, J., Pornography, Padlocks, and Prior Restraints: the Constitutional Limits of the

Nuisance Power, 58 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1478 (1983).

18. Trollope, A., Proceeding Against Defendant in Respect of Allegedly Obscene Film Where Trial of Same Issue Against Different Defendant Had Resulted in Acquittal - All Proceedings Capable of Being Brought Together Before Same Court Whether Abuse of Process, Crim. L. Rev. 350 (June 1984).

Statutes

18 U.S.C. S1461

18 U.S.C. S1462

18 U.S.C. S1463

18 U.S.C. S1464

18 U.S.C. S1465

18 U.S.C. S1735

18 U.S.C. S1736

18 U.S.C. S1737

18 U.S.C. S2251

18 U.S.C. S2252

18 U.S.C. S2253

18 U.S.C. S2254

19 U.S.C. S1305

39 U.S.C. S3008

39 U.S.C. S3011

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
« iepriekšējāTurpināt »