Printer Friendly
The Free Library
14,815,112 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Krug v. Lutz.


U.S. Appeals Court

OBSCENITY obscenity, in law, anything that tends to corrupt public morals by its indecency. The moral concepts that the term connotes vary from time to time and from place to place. In the United States, the word obscenity is a technical legal term. In the 1950s the U.S.  

PUBLICATIONS

Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2003). A state prison inmate INMATE. One who dwells in a part of another's house, the latter dwelling, at the same time, in the said house. Kitch. 45, b; Com. Dig. Justices of the Peace, B 85; 1 B. & Cr. 578; 8 E. C. L. R. 153; 2 Dowl. & Ry. 743; 8 B. & Cr. 71; 15 E. C. L. R. 154; 2 Man. & Ry. 227; 9 B. & Cr.  brought a [section] 1983 action against corrections officials, alleging a procedural due process violation in connection with the review of decisions that excluded incoming publications as obscene. The district court found that the officials enjoyed qualified immunity Qualified immunity is a doctrine in United States law providing immunity from suit to government officials performing discretionary functions when their action did not violate clearly established law. Qualified immunity was created by the U.S. , but granted injunctive relief injunctive relief n. a court-ordered act or prohibition against an act or condition which has been requested, and sometimes granted, in a petition to the court for an injunction.  for the inmate. The district court ordered a review by a different decision-maker when a publication was excluded, if the exclusion was challenged. The officials and inmate appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the inmate had a protected liberty interest in the receipt of his subscription mailings and therefore had a constitutional right to a two-level review of a corrections official's determination that a publication was excludable as obscene. The court noted that a different official from the one who made the initial determination had to review the challenge to the exclusion. (Arizona Department of Corrections The Arizona Department of Corrections is in charge of the incarceration of tens of thousands of inmates in the U.S. state of Arizona. The ADC also manages over 4,000 inmates who have been paroled or that are statutorily released. )
COPYRIGHT 2003 CRS, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2003, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:FREE SPEECH, EXPRESSION, ASSOCIATION
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1U8AZ
Date:Nov 1, 2003
Words:161
Previous Article:18. Food.
Next Article:Maydak v. U.S. Dept. of Justice.(FREE SPEECH, EXPRESSION, ASSOCIATION)(Brief Article)
Topics:



Related Articles
At Jefferson's university: freedom from, not of, religion? (Supreme Court to hear Rosenberger vs. University of Virginia case)(Column)
University's mandatory student activity fee ruled constitutional.
Civil liberties, library groups challenge the latest law restricting Web access.
Free speech, expression, and association.(prisoner litigation)(Brief Article)
Victory for free speech. (Worth Noting).(Brief Article)
Free speech, expression, and association.(Brief Article)
State Supreme Court ruling hailed by speech advocates. (Up Front).(Brief Article)
Fundraisers' tales: Fraud or free speech?
Krug v. Lutz.(due process of law)(Brief Article)
Free speech, expression, association.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2010 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles