1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.2d
  4. 773 P.2d
  5. 773 P.2d 1059 (1989)
 

PEOPLE v. FORD

Nos. 87SA61, 87SA480 and 88SA3.

773 P.2d 1059 (1989)

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark FORD, Ted Jarosz, Lawrence McKay, Modern Books of Colorado, Clarence Neville, James Johnston, Mitchell Kelloff, Myrna Bastian, Clint Hopkins, Darryl Deighton, Gordon Mizell, and Richard Snyder, Defendants-Appellees. MOUNTAINS AND PLAINS BOOKSELLERS ASSOCIATION; Tattered Cover Bookstore, Inc., a Colorado corporation; Joyce Knauer; Gordon's Books, Inc., a Colorado corporation; Cathy Nachtigal, d/b/a Bookplace of Applewood, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Norman EARLY in his official capacity as District Attorney for the City & County of Denver; J.D. MacFarlane in his official capacity as Manager of Safety for the City & County of Denver; and Thomas Coogan in his official capacity as Chief of Police for the City & County of Denver, Defendants-Appellees. 735 EAST COLFAX, INC., d/b/a Kitty's Pleasure Palace, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norman EARLY; J.D. MacFarlane; and Thomas Coogan, Defendants-Appellees.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Rehearing Denied June 5, 1989.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Barney Iuppa, Dist. Atty., Robert M. Brown, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., Linda A. McMahan, Deputy Dist. Atty., Colorado Springs, for the people.

Arthur M. Schwartz, P.C., Arthur M. Schwartz, Michael W. Gross, Bradley J. Reich, Denver, for Mark Ford, et al.

Moya and Recht, Daniel N. Recht, Denver, Peter H. Ney Littleton, for Mountains and Plains Booksellers Ass'n, et al.

Norman S. Early, Jr., Dist. Atty., Nathan B. Coats, Chief Appellate Deputy Dist. Atty., Denver, for Norman Early, et al.

Arthur M. Schwartz, P.C., Arthur M. Schwartz, Michael W. Gross, Denver, for 735 East Colfax, Inc.

Rehearing for 87SA480 Denied June 5, 1989.

ROVIRA, Justice.

These appeals concern the constitutionality of the Colorado obscenity statute, §§ 18-7-101 to -105, 8B C.R.S. (1986). We have elected to consolidate three separate cases, for the purposes of this opinion, because each challenges the validity of the obscenity statute based upon the first amendment to the United States Constitution, article II, section 10 of the Colorado Constitution, and...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases