green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.6 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
"Hatter V"
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#10
28 U.S.C. § 2109
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States
(2×)
Because the opinions in that case concluded that our precedent both preceding and following Posadas had applied the Central Hudson test more strictly, 517 U. S., at 509-510 (opinion of Stevens, J.); id., at 531-532 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment)and because we had rejected the argument that the power to restrict speech about certain socially harmful activities was as broad as the power to prohibit such conduct, see id., at 513514 (opinion of Stevens, J.); see also Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U. S. 476, 482-483, n. 2 (1995)we granted the broadcasters' petition, vacated the judgme…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jerry Preston Thomas, Jr.
(2×)
Duso, 42 F.3d at 368 ; see also United States v. Crouse, 78 F.3d 1097, 1100 (6th Cir.), vacated on other grounds and remanded, 419 U.S. 801 , 117 S.Ct. 39 , 136 L.Ed.2d 3 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Players International, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
See, e.g., Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assoc., et. al. v. United States, 69 F.3d 1296 (5th Cir.1995), vacated, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 39 , 136 L.Ed.2d 3 *503 (1996)(remanded in light of Liquormart, Inc., 517 U.S. 484 , 116 S.Ct. 1495 , 134 L.Ed.2d 711 ). 4 - Consequently, where anti-casino advertising regulations in effect touch on First Amendment protections as a means for protecting its citizens from the social ills cultivated through casino gaming, the holding in H Liquormart must be considered.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES
v.
Terry J. HATTER, Jr., Judge, United States District Court for the Central District of California
v.
Terry J. HATTER, Jr., Judge, United States District Court for the Central District of California
No. 95-1733.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1996.
Cited by 6 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of International Trade (3)
Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U.S.C. Section 1, and since a majority of the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is affirmed under 28 U.S.C. Section 2109, which provides that under these circumstances the Court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided Court.
Justice STEVENS, Justice O’CONNOR, Justice GINSBURG, and Justice BREYER took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.