Document: 451 U.S. 619 101 S.Ct. 1958 68 L.Ed.2d 489 Larry C. FLYNT, Jimmy R. Flynt and Althea Leasure Flynt, Petitioners,v.State of OHIO. No. 80-420. May 18, 1981. PER CURIAM. 1 On July 14, 1976, criminal complaints were issued against petitioners charging them with disseminating obscenity in violation Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2907.32 (1975). The Municipal Court granted petitioners' motions to dismiss the on ground that had been subjected selective discriminatory prosecution Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Appeals reversed, finding evidence insufficient support allegations prosecution. case was remanded for trial. Supreme affirmed. 63 St.2d 132, 407 N.E.2d 15 (1980). We certiorari. 449 1033, 607, 66 495 Because decision not a final judgment within meaning 28 U.S.C. 1257, we writ want jurisdiction. 2 Consistent relevant jurisdictional statute, Court's jurisdiction review state-court is generally limited rendered by highest court State which may be had. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 469, 476-477, 95 1029, 1036, 43 328 In general, final-judgment rule has interpreted "to preclude reviewability . where anything further remains determined court, no matter how dissociated from only federal issue finally adjudicated State." Radio Station WOW, Inc. Johnson, 326 120, 124, 65 1475, 1478, 89 L.Ed. 2092 (1945). Applied context prosecution, finality normally defined imposition sentence. Parr United States, 351 513, 518, 76 912, 916, 100 1377 (1956); Berman 302 211, 212, 58 164, 166, 82 204 (1937); see also Whitus Georgia, 385 545, 547, 87 643, 645, 17 599 (1967). Here there guilt sentence imposed. 3 has, however, certain circumstances, treated judgments as purposes although proceedings take place state court. Cases this kind divided into four categories supra, each category described. do think any exceptions identified Cox. 4 first place, observed most, if all, cases falling exceptions, proceedings, but other issues resolved. There thus probability piecemeal respect issues. Here, it appears will involved trial such whether or publication at obscene. 5 Second, even arguable here falls three opinion, argument fourth category, frivolous, unsound. exception described those situations: 6 "[w]here decided courts pending party seeking might prevail merits nonfederal grounds, rendering unnecessary Court, reversal would preclusive litigation cause action rather than merely controlling nature character of, determining admissibility in, still come. these refusal immediately seriously erode policy, entertained issue, itself litigation." U.S., 482-483, S.Ct., 1039-1040. 7 apparent reversed defense enforcement, case. But question delaying until are convicted, they are, policy our prior cases. quite sure have before us. 8 opinion listed identifiable statutory constitutional policies undermined continuation courts. Miami Herald Publishing Co. Tornillo, 418 241, 94 2831, 41 730 (1974); Mercantile National Bank Langdeau, 371 555, 83 520, 9 523 (1963); Construction Laborers Curry, 542, 531, 514 (1963). suffer proceeding goes forward. presented record prosecute Clause. resolution can await without adverse effect upon important interests. A contrary conclusion permit swallow rule. Any an interlocutory appeal qualify immediate review. That involves does alter conclusion. Obscene material, properly defined, beyond protection First Miller California, 413 15, 23-24, 93 2607, 2614, 37 419 (1973). As comes us, confronted effort unprotected activity, dissemination obscenity. yet courts, bars question. reason treat claim differently Accordingly, dismissed 10 So ordered. 11 Justice STEWART, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 12 I believe under law violate Constitution States. See, e. g., Wood 450 261, 275, 1097, 1105, 67 220 (opinion BRENNAN, J.); ibid. Sewell 435 982, 988, 98 1635, 1638, 56 (dissenting opinion); Splawn 431 595, 602, 97 1987, 1991, 52 606 (STEWART, J., dissenting). It clear me, therefore, "identifiable polic[y]" "undermined courts." Ante, 622. 13 very criteria discussed us "final purposes." 620. Believing acted correctly dismissing complaints, appellate error overturning dismissal, reverse judgment. 14 STEVENS, 1257 "if policy." 483, 1040, 328. view, because discern "no forward." my interest protecting magazine publishers being prosecuted criminally officials their constituents offended content admittedly nonobscene political cartoon "an policy"; motivated adoption Amendment States Constitution. 16 Petitioners publish Hustler, national magazine. complaint after hearing tending establish Ohio's bring hostility constitutionally indistinguishable trite depiction held protected Papish University Missouri Curators, 410 667, 1197, 35 618. court's affirmed over dissent Brown. today certiorari jurisdiction, comment indicating concern standards must apply exercise prosecutorial discretion based impermissible criterion race, religion, rights. high value preventing prosecutions reinstatement interest, respectfully dissent.

Category: 2