§Why CasetextPricing

Lindsay Lohan, Appellant,v.Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Brief

47 Cited authorities

  1. Reed v. Town of Gilbert

    576 U.S. 155 (2015)   Cited 1,274 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a town's content-based sign regulation failed strict scrutiny because “[t]he Town cannot claim that placing strict limits on temporary directional signs is necessary to beautify the Town while at the same time allowing unlimited numbers of other types of signs that create the same problem”

  2. U.S. v. Stevens

    559 U.S. 460 (2010)   Cited 1,155 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding law unconstitutional under First Amendment where "impermissible applications ... far outnumber[ed] any permissible ones"

  3. Central Hudson Gas Elec. v. Public Serv. Comm'n

    447 U.S. 557 (1980)   Cited 2,052 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restriction on commercial speech must directly advance a substantial governmental interest

  4. Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.

    564 U.S. 552 (2011)   Cited 506 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restriction on "speech result[ing] from an economic motive" is not "a mere commercial regulation"

  5. Va. Pharmacy Bd. v. Va. Consumer Council

    425 U.S. 748 (1976)   Cited 1,730 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding society and consumers both have a strong interest "in the free flow of commercial information"

  6. Matal v. Tam

    137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017)   Cited 302 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding law prohibiting "trademarks like . . . 'Down with racists,' 'Down with sexists,' 'Down with homophobes' " was not narrowly tailored to interest in preventing disparaging language from disrupting the orderly flow of commerce

  7. Howell v. New York Post Co.

    81 N.Y.2d 115 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 1,430 times
    Holding that the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: " extreme and outrageous conduct; intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress; a causal connection between the conduct and injury; and severe emotional distress."

  8. Bartnicki v. Vopper

    532 U.S. 514 (2001)   Cited 285 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding unconstitutional the prohibition on disclosure of illegally intercepted conversation even though the initial step in the disclosure process, the interception, was illegal and harmful to those whose privacy was invaded

  9. Time, Inc. v. Hill

    385 U.S. 374 (1967)   Cited 713 times
    Holding constitutional a state law imposing civil liability for malicious false statements that invade a private individual's right of privacy

  10. Winters v. New York

    333 U.S. 507 (1948)   Cited 882 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a statute imposes criminal penalties, the standard of certainty involved in vagueness review is higher

  11. Section 51 - Action for injunction and for damages

    N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 51   Cited 553 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Affording cause of action for commercial use of name or picture without prior written consent

  12. Section 50 - Right of privacy

    N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50   Cited 520 times   8 Legal Analyses

    A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor. N.Y. Civ. RightsLaw § 50