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.
5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 25 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia Anchor | green | “deference to a legislative finding cannot limit judicial inquiry when first amendment rights are at stake.” | 10 |
| 2 | Ripplinger v. Collins | green | “justifiably attacked on its face as abridging free expression.” | 4 |
| 3 | Priscilla Garcia Maricela Buitrago United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Afl-Cio v. Spun Steak Company, a California Corporation | green | “must examine restrictions on speech with particular care when their effects fall unevenly on different ... groups in society” | 4 |
| 4 | Cota v. Tucson Police Department | green | “the availability of spanish-speaking personnel is necessary for effective performance of the tucson police department's mission” | 4 |
| 5 | Martin v. Parrish | green | “the extra power the government has in this area comes from the nature of the government's mission as employer,” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.