Miller v. United States

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 413 U.S. 913

Decision Date: 6/25/1973

Docket Number: No. 70-43; No. 71-40; No. 71-182; No. 71-1517; No. 72-154

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Miller v. United States, 413 U.S. 913 (1973)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1973


Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Highly CitedTop 3% most-cited · cited by 43 decisions
43
Citing decisions
4
Authorities cited
6+
Courts citing

Citations by decade

31
9
1
1
1
1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s

Courts citing this case

2d Cir.4
10th Cir.3
5th Cir.3
9th Cir.3
N.C. Ct. App.3
4th Cir.2
Most recently cited by10
  • 2012Maestas v. State Nev.
  • 2001New York State National Organization for Women v. Pataki 2d Cir.
  • 1994Lee v. City of Rome N.D. Ga.
  • 1987State v. Mayes N.C. Ct. App.
  • 1986Cinema I Video, Inc. v. Thornburg N.C. Ct. App.
  • 1985People v. Anderson Ill. App. Ct.
  • 1984United States v. Benz 11th Cir.
  • 1982Donohoe v. Watt D.D.C.
  • 1981Piepenburg v. Cutler 10th Cir.
  • 1981United States v. Jennings 4th Cir.
Cites 4 cases
  • Miller v. United States
  • Kaplan v. United States
  • United States v. Ewing
  • United States v. Miller

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Opinion

Miller et al. v. United States. Kaplan v. United States. Ewing, dba Action Publishing Co. v. United States. Miller v. United States. Cangiano et al. v. United States.

Judges

  • Me. Justice Douglas would grant cer-tiorari and reverse the judgments. See Miller v. California, ante, p. 37.
  • joined by Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall,
majority

C. A. 9th Cir. Reported below: 431 F. 2d 655;

Ct. App. D. C. Reported below: 277 A. 2d 477;

C. A. 10th Cir. Reported below: 445 F. 2d 945;

C. A. 9th Cir. Reported below: 455 F. 2d 899; and

C. A. 2d Cir. Reported below: 475 F. 2d 1393. Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, and cases remanded to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, ante, p. 15; Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, ante, p. 49; Kaplan v. California, ante, p. 115; United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels Film, ante, p. 123; United States v. Orito, ante, p. 139; Heller v. New York, ante, p. 483; Roaden v. Kentucky, ante, p. 496; and Alexander v. Virginia, ante, p. 836.

Me. Justice Douglas would grant cer-tiorari and reverse the judgments. See Miller v. California, ante, p. 37.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.