16 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2000 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Islandgreen2 sentences2000See id. 7 Thus, the high Cowl’s removal of this Twenty-first Amendment “make-weight” argument in 44 Liquormart does not eliminate the need for reviewing cowls to conduct a traditional, First Amendment analysis when local liquor-related regulations are challenged. 8 See 44 Liquormart, 517 U.S. at 516 , 116 S.Ct. at 1515 , 134 L.Ed.2d at 736 . 2000See id. 7 Thus, the high Cowl’s removal of this Twenty-first Amendment “make-weight” argument in 44 Liquormart does not eliminate the need for reviewing cowls to conduct a traditional, First Amendment analysis when local liquor-related regulations are challenged. 8 See 44 Liquormart, 517 U.S. at 516 , 116 S.Ct. at 1515 , 134 L.Ed.2d at 736 . | 2 | 2 |
Triplett Grille, Inc., D/B/A the Back Door v. City of Akrongreen2 sentences1998They rely on cases like Triplett Grille, Inc. v. City of Akron, 40 F.3d 129 (6th Cir.1994) which have held that public indecency statues that bar all public nudity violate the First Amendment when applied to “live performances with serious literary, artistic or political value.” Id. at 136 . 1998They rely on cases like Triplett Grille, Inc. v. City of Akron, 40 F.3d 129 (6th Cir.1994) which have held that public indecency statues that bar all public nudity violate the First Amendment when applied to “live performances with serious literary, artistic or political value.” Id. at 136 . | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Smithgreen2 sentences1998Furthermore, quite recently in United States v. Smith, 135 F.3d 963 (5th Cir. 1998), the Fifth Circuit refused to recognize a qualified First Amendment privilege for news reporters to withhold non-confidential information in criminal cases. 1998Furthermore, quite recently in United States v. Smith, 135 F.3d 963 (5th Cir. 1998), the Fifth Circuit refused to recognize a qualified First Amendment privilege for news reporters to withhold non-confidential information in criminal cases. | 1 | 1 |
Kelley Property Development, Inc. v. Town of Lebanongreen2 sentences1998See also Meyer, 510 U.S. at 484 , 114 S.Ct. at 1005 , 127 L.Ed.2d at 322 (“In our most recent decisions, we have responded cautiously to suggestions that Bivens remedies be extended into new contexts’ ”); Kelley Property Development, Inc., v. Town of Lebanon, 226 Conn. 314, 627 A.2d 909, 921 (1993) (recognizing the Supreme Court’s retreat); Brown v. State, 89 N.Y.2d 172 , 652 N.Y.S.2d 223 , 674 N.E.2d 1129, 1138 (1996) (same). .We stress, as the dissent acknowledges, that the overarching question presented by this case is whether article 1, section 23, is self-executing. 1998See also Meyer, 510 U.S. at 484 , 114 S.Ct. at 1005 , 127 L.Ed.2d at 322 (“In our most recent decisions, we have responded cautiously to suggestions that Bivens remedies be extended into new contexts’ ”); Kelley Property Development, Inc., v. Town of Lebanon, 226 Conn. 314, 627 A.2d 909, 921 (1993) (recognizing the Supreme Court’s retreat); Brown v. State, 89 N.Y.2d 172 , 652 N.Y.S.2d 223 , 674 N.E.2d 1129, 1138 (1996) (same). .We stress, as the dissent acknowledges, that the overarching question presented by this case is whether article 1, section 23, is self-executing. | 1 | 1 |
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyergreen2 sentences1998See Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 , 114 S.Ct. 996 , 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (refusing to extend Bivens actions to Federal Government agencies); Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (declining to imply a Bivens action for alleged due process violations for the denial of Social Security disability benefits on the ground that a damages remedy was not included in the remedial scheme devised by Congress); United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987) (declining Bivens action while reaffirming Chappell 1998See Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 , 114 S.Ct. 996 , 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (refusing to extend Bivens actions to Federal Government agencies); Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (declining to imply a Bivens action for alleged due process violations for the denial of Social Security disability benefits on the ground that a damages remedy was not included in the remedial scheme devised by Congress); United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987) (declining Bivens action while reaffirming Chappell | 1 | 1 |
In Re Letelliergreen1 sentence1998See also In re Letellier, 578 A.2d 722 (Me. 1990) (television news reporter had no First Amendment privilege to refuse to comply with grand jury subpoena requiring him to hand over unbroadcast portions of a non-confidential videotaped interview with an official under criminal investigation). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. State of New Yorkgreen2 sentences1998See also Meyer, 510 U.S. at 484 , 114 S.Ct. at 1005 , 127 L.Ed.2d at 322 (“In our most recent decisions, we have responded cautiously to suggestions that Bivens remedies be extended into new contexts’ ”); Kelley Property Development, Inc., v. Town of Lebanon, 226 Conn. 314, 627 A.2d 909, 921 (1993) (recognizing the Supreme Court’s retreat); Brown v. State, 89 N.Y.2d 172 , 652 N.Y.S.2d 223 , 674 N.E.2d 1129, 1138 (1996) (same). .We stress, as the dissent acknowledges, that the overarching question presented by this case is whether article 1, section 23, is self-executing. 1998See also Meyer, 510 U.S. at 484 , 114 S.Ct. at 1005 , 127 L.Ed.2d at 322 (“In our most recent decisions, we have responded cautiously to suggestions that Bivens remedies be extended into new contexts’ ”); Kelley Property Development, Inc., v. Town of Lebanon, 226 Conn. 314, 627 A.2d 909, 921 (1993) (recognizing the Supreme Court’s retreat); Brown v. State, 89 N.Y.2d 172 , 652 N.Y.S.2d 223 , 674 N.E.2d 1129, 1138 (1996) (same). .We stress, as the dissent acknowledges, that the overarching question presented by this case is whether article 1, section 23, is self-executing. | 1 | 1 |
Howell v. New York Post Co.green2 sentences1996See Howell v. New York Post, Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115 , 596 N.Y.S.2d 350 , 612 N.E.2d 699 (1993). 1996See Howell v. New York Post, Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115 , 596 N.Y.S.2d 350 , 612 N.E.2d 699 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Breard v. Alexandriagreen2 sentences1985We are equally clear that the Constitution imposes no such restraint on government as respects purely commercial advertising." Id. at 54 , 62 S.Ct. at 921 , 86 L.Ed. at 1265 ; see also Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622 , 71 S.Ct. 920 , 95 L.Ed. 1233 (1951), where the Court upheld a conviction for violation of an ordinance prohibiting door-to-door solicitation of magazine subscriptions. [7] General Laws 1956 (1976 Reenactment) title 3. [8] Queensgate Investment Co. v. Liquor Control Commission, 69 Ohio St.2d 361 , 433 N.E.2d 138 (1982), involved a First Amendment challenge to an Ohio Liquor Co 1985We are equally clear that the Constitution imposes no such restraint on government as respects purely commercial advertising." Id. at 54 , 62 S.Ct. at 921 , 86 L.Ed. at 1265 ; see also Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622 , 71 S.Ct. 920 , 95 L.Ed. 1233 (1951), where the Court upheld a conviction for violation of an ordinance prohibiting door-to-door solicitation of magazine subscriptions. [7] General Laws 1956 (1976 Reenactment) title 3. [8] Queensgate Investment Co. v. Liquor Control Commission, 69 Ohio St.2d 361 , 433 N.E.2d 138 (1982), involved a First Amendment challenge to an Ohio Liquor Co | 1 | 1 |
Queensgate Investment Co. v. Liquor Control Commissiongreen2 sentences1985Queensgate Investment Co. v. Liquor Control Commission, 69 Ohio St.2d 361 , 433 N.E.2d 138 (1982), involved a First Amendment challenge to an Ohio Liquor Control Commission regulation that, although generally permitting liquor advertising, required that certain liquor permit holders “not advertise the price per bottle or drink of any alcoholic beverage, or in any manner refer to price or price advantage except within their premises and in a manner not visible from the outside of said premises.” Id. at 362 n. 1, 433 N.E.2d at 139 n. 1. 1985Queensgate Investment Co. v. Liquor Control Commission, 69 Ohio St.2d 361 , 433 N.E.2d 138 (1982), involved a First Amendment challenge to an Ohio Liquor Control Commission regulation that, although generally permitting liquor advertising, required that certain liquor permit holders “not advertise the price per bottle or drink of any alcoholic beverage, or in any manner refer to price or price advantage except within their premises and in a manner not visible from the outside of said premises.” Id. at 362 n. 1, 433 N.E.2d at 139 n. 1. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Herbert v. Lando
green
2 sentences1998Although some courts have construed this concurrence as a mandate to create a qualified newsmans' privilege in criminal cases, See e.g., LaRouche, 841 F.2d at 1182 , the Rhode Island Supreme Court, however, has stated in Outlet Communications Inc. v. State, 588 A.2d 1050 (R.I. 1991): "`Our reading of Branzburg, together with Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 , 99 S.Ct. 1635 , 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979), leads us to the conclusion that the Supreme Court of the United States has rejected the proposition that there is a First Amendment privilege accorded to news person to refuse to disclose information, 1998Although some courts have construed this concurrence as a mandate to create a qualified newsmans' privilege in criminal cases, See e.g., LaRouche, 841 F.2d at 1182 , the Rhode Island Supreme Court, however, has stated in Outlet Communications Inc. v. State, 588 A.2d 1050 (R.I. 1991): "`Our reading of Branzburg, together with Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 , 99 S.Ct. 1635 , 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979), leads us to the conclusion that the Supreme Court of the United States has rejected the proposition that there is a First Amendment privilege accorded to news person to refuse to disclose information, | 3 | 1990–1998 |
Capuano v. Outlet Co.
green
2 sentences1998Although some courts have construed this concurrence as a mandate to create a qualified newsmans' privilege in criminal cases, See e.g., LaRouche, 841 F.2d at 1182 , the Rhode Island Supreme Court, however, has stated in Outlet Communications Inc. v. State, 588 A.2d 1050 (R.I. 1991): "`Our reading of Branzburg, together with Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 , 99 S.Ct. 1635 , 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979), leads us to the conclusion that the Supreme Court of the United States has rejected the proposition that there is a First Amendment privilege accorded to news person to refuse to disclose information, 1998Although some courts have construed this concurrence as a mandate to create a qualified newsmans' privilege in criminal cases, See e.g., LaRouche, 841 F.2d at 1182 , the Rhode Island Supreme Court, however, has stated in Outlet Communications Inc. v. State, 588 A.2d 1050 (R.I. 1991): "`Our reading of Branzburg, together with Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 , 99 S.Ct. 1635 , 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979), leads us to the conclusion that the Supreme Court of the United States has rejected the proposition that there is a First Amendment privilege accorded to news person to refuse to disclose information, | 2 | 1991–1998 |
Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998And although we have cautioned against the enactment of zoning regulations that have “the effect of suppressing, or greatly restricting ac *565 cess to, lawful speech,” American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S., at 71, n. 35, 96 S.Ct. 2440 , 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (plurality opinion), we have never suggested that the First Amendment compels the Government to ensure that adult theaters, or any other kinds of speech-related businesses for that matter, will be able to obtain sites at bargain prices. 1998And although we have cautioned against the enactment of zoning regulations that have “the effect of suppressing, or greatly restricting ac *565 cess to, lawful speech,” American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S., at 71, n. 35, 96 S.Ct. 2440 , 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (plurality opinion), we have never suggested that the First Amendment compels the Government to ensure that adult theaters, or any other kinds of speech-related businesses for that matter, will be able to obtain sites at bargain prices. | 2 | 1996–1998 |
Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Co.
green
2 sentences1982The plaintiffs also refer us to Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Co., 74 Cal. App.3d 383 , 141 Cal. Rptr. 511 (1977), in support of their claim that the First Amendment does not bar recovery in this case. 1982The plaintiffs also refer us to Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Co., 74 Cal. App.3d 383 , 141 Cal. Rptr. 511 (1977), in support of their claim that the First Amendment does not bar recovery in this case. | 2 | 1982–1982 |
Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America
green
2 sentences1998Freedom to select the clergy, where no improper methods of choice are proven, we think, must now be said to have federal constitutional protection as a part of the free exercise of religion against state interference." 344 U.S., at 116 , 73 S.Ct., at 154-55 , 97 L.Ed., at It is clear from the penultimate paragraph of the Opinion of the Court in Kedroff that it was not announcing a new First Amendment doctrine, but that it was simply applying well established constitutional law under the Free Exercise Clause: "Ours is a government which by the `law of its being' allows no statute, state or nati 1998Freedom to select the clergy, where no improper methods of choice are proven, we think, must now be said to have federal constitutional protection as a part of the free exercise of religion against state interference." 344 U.S., at 116 , 73 S.Ct., at 154-55 , 97 L.Ed., at It is clear from the penultimate paragraph of the Opinion of the Court in Kedroff that it was not announcing a new First Amendment doctrine, but that it was simply applying well established constitutional law under the Free Exercise Clause: "Ours is a government which by the `law of its being' allows no statute, state or nati | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. The Larouche Campaign, Appeal of National Broadcasting Company, Inc
green
2 sentences1998Although some courts have construed this concurrence as a mandate to create a qualified newsmans' privilege in criminal cases, See e.g., LaRouche, 841 F.2d at 1182 , the Rhode Island Supreme Court, however, has stated in Outlet Communications Inc. v. State, 588 A.2d 1050 (R.I. 1991): "`Our reading of Branzburg, together with Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 , 99 S.Ct. 1635 , 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979), leads us to the conclusion that the Supreme Court of the United States has rejected the proposition that there is a First Amendment privilege accorded to news person to refuse to disclose information, 1998Although some courts have construed this concurrence as a mandate to create a qualified newsmans' privilege in criminal cases, See e.g., LaRouche, 841 F.2d at 1182 , the Rhode Island Supreme Court, however, has stated in Outlet Communications Inc. v. State, 588 A.2d 1050 (R.I. 1991): "`Our reading of Branzburg, together with Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 , 99 S.Ct. 1635 , 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979), leads us to the conclusion that the Supreme Court of the United States has rejected the proposition that there is a First Amendment privilege accorded to news person to refuse to disclose information, | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Outlet Communications, Inc. v. State
green
2 sentences1998Although some courts have construed this concurrence as a mandate to create a qualified newsmans' privilege in criminal cases, See e.g., LaRouche, 841 F.2d at 1182 , the Rhode Island Supreme Court, however, has stated in Outlet Communications Inc. v. State, 588 A.2d 1050 (R.I. 1991): "`Our reading of Branzburg, together with Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 , 99 S.Ct. 1635 , 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979), leads us to the conclusion that the Supreme Court of the United States has rejected the proposition that there is a First Amendment privilege accorded to news person to refuse to disclose information, 1998Although some courts have construed this concurrence as a mandate to create a qualified newsmans' privilege in criminal cases, See e.g., LaRouche, 841 F.2d at 1182 , the Rhode Island Supreme Court, however, has stated in Outlet Communications Inc. v. State, 588 A.2d 1050 (R.I. 1991): "`Our reading of Branzburg, together with Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 , 99 S.Ct. 1635 , 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979), leads us to the conclusion that the Supreme Court of the United States has rejected the proposition that there is a First Amendment privilege accorded to news person to refuse to disclose information, | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Schweiker v. Chilicky
green
2 sentences1998See Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 , 114 S.Ct. 996 , 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (refusing to extend Bivens actions to Federal Government agencies); Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (declining to imply a Bivens action for alleged due process violations for the denial of Social Security disability benefits on the ground that a damages remedy was not included in the remedial scheme devised by Congress); United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987) (declining Bivens action while reaffirming Chappell 1998See Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 , 114 S.Ct. 996 , 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (refusing to extend Bivens actions to Federal Government agencies); Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (declining to imply a Bivens action for alleged due process violations for the denial of Social Security disability benefits on the ground that a damages remedy was not included in the remedial scheme devised by Congress); United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987) (declining Bivens action while reaffirming Chappell | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. Stanley
green
2 sentences1998See Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 , 114 S.Ct. 996 , 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (refusing to extend Bivens actions to Federal Government agencies); Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (declining to imply a Bivens action for alleged due process violations for the denial of Social Security disability benefits on the ground that a damages remedy was not included in the remedial scheme devised by Congress); United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987) (declining Bivens action while reaffirming Chappell 1998See Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 , 114 S.Ct. 996 , 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (refusing to extend Bivens actions to Federal Government agencies); Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (declining to imply a Bivens action for alleged due process violations for the denial of Social Security disability benefits on the ground that a damages remedy was not included in the remedial scheme devised by Congress); United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987) (declining Bivens action while reaffirming Chappell | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Chappell v. Wallace
green
2 sentences1998See Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 , 114 S.Ct. 996 , 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (refusing to extend Bivens actions to Federal Government agencies); Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (declining to imply a Bivens action for alleged due process violations for the denial of Social Security disability benefits on the ground that a damages remedy was not included in the remedial scheme devised by Congress); United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987) (declining Bivens action while reaffirming Chappell 1998See Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 , 114 S.Ct. 996 , 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (refusing to extend Bivens actions to Federal Government agencies); Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (declining to imply a Bivens action for alleged due process violations for the denial of Social Security disability benefits on the ground that a damages remedy was not included in the remedial scheme devised by Congress); United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987) (declining Bivens action while reaffirming Chappell | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Bush v. Lucas
green
2 sentences1998See Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 , 114 S.Ct. 996 , 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (refusing to extend Bivens actions to Federal Government agencies); Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (declining to imply a Bivens action for alleged due process violations for the denial of Social Security disability benefits on the ground that a damages remedy was not included in the remedial scheme devised by Congress); United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987) (declining Bivens action while reaffirming Chappell 1998See Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 , 114 S.Ct. 996 , 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (refusing to extend Bivens actions to Federal Government agencies); Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 , 108 S.Ct. 2460 , 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) (declining to imply a Bivens action for alleged due process violations for the denial of Social Security disability benefits on the ground that a damages remedy was not included in the remedial scheme devised by Congress); United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987) (declining Bivens action while reaffirming Chappell | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board
green
2 sentences1997In Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105 , 112 S.Ct. 501 , 116 L.Ed.2d 476 (1991), the United States Supreme Court was faced with a First Amendment challenge to New York's similarly structured statute, N.Y.Exec.Law § 632-a (McKinney 1982 and Supp.1991) (repealed 1992), enacted in 1977 in response to the publicity generated by the "Son of Sam" serial killings. 1997In Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105 , 112 S.Ct. 501 , 116 L.Ed.2d 476 (1991), the United States Supreme Court was faced with a First Amendment challenge to New York's similarly structured statute, N.Y.Exec.Law § 632-a (McKinney 1982 and Supp.1991) (repealed 1992), enacted in 1977 in response to the publicity generated by the "Son of Sam" serial killings. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Pound Hill Corp., Inc. v. Perl
green
1 sentence1996This Court recently examined the reach of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in Pound Hill Corp., Inc. v. Perl, 668 A.2d 1260 (R.I.1996). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
cluster 503161
green
1 sentence1995Lanier v. City of Newton, Ala., 842 F.2d 253 , 256 (11th Cir. 1988). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Valentine v. Chrestensen
red
2 sentences1985We are equally clear that the Constitution imposes no such restraint on government as respects purely commercial advertising." Id. at 54 , 62 S.Ct. at 921 , 86 L.Ed. at 1265 ; see also Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622 , 71 S.Ct. 920 , 95 L.Ed. 1233 (1951), where the Court upheld a conviction for violation of an ordinance prohibiting door-to-door solicitation of magazine subscriptions. [7] General Laws 1956 (1976 Reenactment) title 3. [8] Queensgate Investment Co. v. Liquor Control Commission, 69 Ohio St.2d 361 , 433 N.E.2d 138 (1982), involved a First Amendment challenge to an Ohio Liquor Co 1985We are equally clear that the Constitution imposes no such restraint on government as respects purely commercial advertising." Id. at 54 , 62 S.Ct. at 921 , 86 L.Ed. at 1265 ; see also Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622 , 71 S.Ct. 920 , 95 L.Ed. 1233 (1951), where the Court upheld a conviction for violation of an ordinance prohibiting door-to-door solicitation of magazine subscriptions. [7] General Laws 1956 (1976 Reenactment) title 3. [8] Queensgate Investment Co. v. Liquor Control Commission, 69 Ohio St.2d 361 , 433 N.E.2d 138 (1982), involved a First Amendment challenge to an Ohio Liquor Co | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Weirum v. RKO General, Inc.
green
2 sentences1982II The plaintiffs rely in large measure on Weirum v. RKO General, Inc., 15 Cal.3d 40 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 539 P.2d 36 (1975), in arguing that the First Amendment does not bar recovery. 1982II The plaintiffs rely in large measure on Weirum v. RKO General, Inc., 15 Cal.3d 40 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 539 P.2d 36 (1975), in arguing that the First Amendment does not bar recovery. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.