MUTUAL FILM CORPORATION v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO
Supreme Court Cases
236 U.S. 230 (1915)
Case Overview
Legal Principle at Issue
Do the constitutional protections of freedom of expression, including those of the Ohio Constitution, extend to motion pictures?
Action
Affirmed (includes modified). Petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition.
Advocated for Respondent
- Robert M. Morgan View all cases
- Clarence D. Laylin View all cases
- James I. Boulger View all cases
- Timothy S. Hogan View all cases
Advocated for Petitioner
- William B. Sanders View all cases
- Walter N. Seligsberg View all cases
- Harold T. Clark View all cases
Cite this page
- MUTUAL FILM CORPORATION v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO. (n.d.). First Amendment Library. Retrieved April 27, 2025, from https://www.thefire.org/supreme-court/mutual-film-corporation-v-industrial-commission-ohio
- MUTUAL FILM CORPORATION v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, First Amendment Library, https://www.thefire.org/supreme-court/mutual-film-corporation-v-industrial-commission-ohio (last visited 27 Apr. 2025).
- Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). "MUTUAL FILM CORPORATION v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO." Oyez. https://www.thefire.org/supreme-court/mutual-film-corporation-v-industrial-commission-ohio (accessed April 27, 2025).
- "MUTUAL FILM CORPORATION v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO." First Amendment Library. Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), n.d. 27 Apr. 2025, www.thefire.org/supreme-court/mutual-film-corporation-v-industrial-commission-ohio.