Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New York opinions name it 3 courts 2000–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York 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 |
|---|---|---|
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diegogreen2 sentences2017When evaluated under the Central Hudson test, petitioners’ contention lacks merit (see Metromedia, Inc. v City of San Diego, 453 US 490, 498-499, 510-512 ; Suffolk Outdoor Adv. 2017When evaluated under the Central Hudson test, petitioners’ contention lacks merit (see Metromedia, Inc. v San Diego, 453 US 490, 498-499, 510-512 [1981]; Suffolk Outdoor Adv. | 2 | 3 |
Suffolk Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Hulsegreen2 sentences2017Co. v Hulse, 43 NY2d 483, 488-489 ). 2017Co. v Hulse, 43 NY2d 483, 488-489 [1977]). | 1 | 2 |
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commissiongreen2 sentences2010Comm’n of N. Y., 447 US 557, 566 [1980]; see also Matter of von Wiegen, 63 NY2d 163, 170 [1984] [applying Central Hudson analysis]). 2004Applying the factors noted in Central Hudson and reaffirmed in its progeny, we find that the TCPA restrictions upon transmission of unsolicited advertisements by facsimile are constitutional since the statute addresses a substantial government interest, materially advances that interest, and is not more extensive than necessary to serve that interest (Central Hudson, 447 US at 566 ). | 1 | 2 |
Board of Trustees of State Univ. of NY v. Foxgreen1 sentence2010“What our decisions require is a ‘ “fit” between the legislature’s ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends’ — a fit that is not necessarily perfect, but reasonable.” (Fox, 492 US at 480 [citation omitted].) 6 C. | 1 | 1 |
In re von Wiegengreen1 sentence2010Comm’n of N. Y., 447 US 557, 566 [1980]; see also Matter of von Wiegen, 63 NY2d 163, 170 [1984] [applying Central Hudson analysis]). | 1 | 1 |
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2000All are important and, to a certain extent, interrelated.” (Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn. v United States, 527 US 173, 183 [1999].) The test still governs the review of restrictions on commercial speech. | 1 | 1 |
Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authoritygreen2 sentences2000Auth., 134 F3d 87 , 98 [2d Cir 1998], affg in relevant part 973 F Supp 280, 283-284 [ND NY 1997].) Instead, the Court affirmed without discussion the portion of the District Court’s opinion that held that “for purposes of a Central Hudson analysis, th[e] Court need not confine itself to only what is explicitly set forth as the legislative purpose of [the challenged enactment] in determining the validity of the Government interest asserted.” ( 973 F Supp, at 283 [emphasis added].) Significantly, National Adv. (supra) had relied on Dills v City of Marietta, Ga. (674 F2d 1377, 1381 [11th Cir 1982 2000Auth., 134 F3d 87 , 98 [2d Cir 1998], affg in relevant part 973 F Supp 280, 283-284 [ND NY 1997].) Instead, the Court affirmed without discussion the portion of the District Court’s opinion that held that “for purposes of a Central Hudson analysis, th[e] Court need not confine itself to only what is explicitly set forth as the legislative purpose of [the challenged enactment] in determining the validity of the Government interest asserted.” ( 973 F Supp, at 283 [emphasis added].) Significantly, National Adv. (supra) had relied on Dills v City of Marietta, Ga. (674 F2d 1377, 1381 [11th Cir 1982 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Axelrod
green
1 sentence2010Plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate either the prospect of imminent and irreparable harm or the balance of equities tipping in their favor (see Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d at 750 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York
green
1 sentence2000If that judgment is correct, the advertising displays that are exempt have less incidence on traffic than those of [the proponents of advertising vehicles].” (Railway Express Agency v New York, 336 US 106, 110 , supra.) Because the City’s rule directly and materially advances its interest in reducing traffic, the rule meets the third prong of the Central Hudson test. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
green
1 sentence2000Auth., 134 F3d 87 , 98 [2d Cir 1998], affg in relevant part 973 F Supp 280, 283-284 [ND NY 1997].) Instead, the Court affirmed without discussion the portion of the District Court’s opinion that held that “for purposes of a Central Hudson analysis, th[e] Court need not confine itself to only what is explicitly set forth as the legislative purpose of [the challenged enactment] in determining the validity of the Government interest asserted.” ( 973 F Supp, at 283 [emphasis added].) Significantly, National Adv. (supra) had relied on Dills v City of Marietta, Ga. (674 F2d 1377, 1381 [11th Cir 1982 | 1 | 2000–2000 |
City of Marietta v. Dills
green
1 sentence2000Auth., 134 F3d 87 , 98 [2d Cir 1998], affg in relevant part 973 F Supp 280, 283-284 [ND NY 1997].) Instead, the Court affirmed without discussion the portion of the District Court’s opinion that held that “for purposes of a Central Hudson analysis, th[e] Court need not confine itself to only what is explicitly set forth as the legislative purpose of [the challenged enactment] in determining the validity of the Government interest asserted.” ( 973 F Supp, at 283 [emphasis added].) Significantly, National Adv. (supra) had relied on Dills v City of Marietta, Ga. (674 F2d 1377, 1381 [11th Cir 1982 | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Harden v. Hoosier
green
1 sentence2000Co. v Town of Babylon, 900 F2d 551, 555 [2d Cir 1990], cert denied 498 US 852 [1990].) This court is reticent to find a special requirement based on this statement in National Adv., however, inasmuch as the Second Circuit, in a later case involving the application of this prong of the Central Hudson test, accepted a State agency’s assertions of “substantial” State interests that appeared nowhere in the enactment itself. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Levy v. Exxon Corp.
green
1 sentence2000(See, e.g., Don’s Porta Signs v City of Clearwater, 829 F2d 1051 [11th Cir 1987], cert denied 485 US 981 [1988]; Lindsay v City of San Antonio, 821 F2d 1103 [5th Cir 1987], cert denied 484 US 1010 [1988].) | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children & Adults of Louisiana, Inc. v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc.
green
1 sentence2000(See, e.g., Don’s Porta Signs v City of Clearwater, 829 F2d 1051 [11th Cir 1987], cert denied 485 US 981 [1988]; Lindsay v City of San Antonio, 821 F2d 1103 [5th Cir 1987], cert denied 484 US 1010 [1988].) | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.