◆ SpookStack

‘ precluding WSO from licizing the Laundry 's @ring policies. , a The injunction was isSued notwithstanding the Yact that the . defendant had filed a - verified answer putting in issue ‘the basic allegations of the complaint. I was chief counsel throughout the trial court proceedings and then prosecuted an appeal to the Appellate Court of Illinois which vacated the injunction, allowing damages to the West Side Organization for the wrongful.jssuance of theinjunction. 204 N. E. 2d 589 (1965) Centennial then appealed to the Supreme Court of Illinois which affirmed the Appellate Court's holding. 215 N..E. 2d 443 (1966) The case is considered one of the leading free speech cases in Illinois and is still cited as a landmark in determining the scope of a court's injunctive power. -The Chancellor who issued the original injunction was Cornelius J. osing counsel were R j nd 66 , b7C The case commenced Novem- ber 12, 1964, and was finally decided by the Illinois Supreme Court in 1966. 5) Times Film Corporation vs. City of Chicago. I represented the Times Film Corporation in a series of cases against the Chicago Censor Board. Two of those cases were ultimately appealed to and decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The first case involved a movie entitled The Game of Love. This was one of the earliest motion picture censorship cases brought in Illinois and was decided by a federal Master in Chancery in favor of Times Film Corporation and against the Chicago Censor Board. This involved many, many weeks of hearings before the Master, including testimony of witnesses, presentation of trial briefs and other documents. The Master was David A. Shipman, 135 S. LaSalle St., Chicago, Il., 60603, 312-782-7331. When the report was filed with Federal District Court Judge Joseph Samuel Perry, he impaneled an advisory jury to view the film and decide its obscenity. The jury voted 11 to 1 that the film was obscene and Judge Perry chose the jury report over his Master's report. Judge Perry's decision is reported at 139 F. Supp. 837 (1956). I took an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the 7th Cincuit which affirmed the lower court's decision. 244 F. 2d 432 (1957) I then sought a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States which reversed the Court of Appeals and the trial court in a per curiam decision. 355 U.S. 35 (1957) A permit was then issued for the showing of the film but the commercial success of the film had been vastly diluted by the time delay and the expense of the litigation. The client then decided to seek a ruling on the validity of the Censor Board itself. A second case was brought in federal court involving a motion picture called Don Juan. The film had not been presented to the Censor Board for prior viewing and a ruling was sought that the film could be shown without such previous submission. District Court Judge William Campbell dismissed the action. 180 F. Supp. 843 (1959) His decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. 272 F. 2d 90 (1959) The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and by a 5 to 4 decision, upheld the validity of the Censor Board. 365 U.S. 43 (1960), reh. den. 365 U.S. 856 (1961) The case remains one of the leading cases in the censorship field. Twas the lead counsel ‘4 i ’ ge Q