§Why CasetextPricing

Expressions Hair Design, et al., Respondents,v.Eric T. Schneiderman,, et al., Appellants.

Brief

39 Cited authorities

  1. Pennhurst State School Hosp. v. Halderman

    465 U.S. 89 (1984)   Cited 13,397 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sovereign immunity prohibits federal courts from "instruct[ing] state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law"

  2. 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

  3. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union

    521 U.S. 844 (1997)   Cited 986 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding parts of § 223 unconstitutional under the First Amendment

  4. Houston v. Hill

    482 U.S. 451 (1987)   Cited 1,338 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the First Amendment does not permit states to “provide the police with unfettered discretion to arrest individuals for words or conduct that annoy or offend them”

  5. Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.

    564 U.S. 552 (2011)   Cited 504 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restriction on "speech result[ing] from an economic motive" is not "a mere commercial regulation"

  6. 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"

  7. 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island

    517 U.S. 484 (1996)   Cited 501 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding advertising limits on liquor retailers violated First Amendment, explaining that state decision to license its liquor retailers did not permit it to condition license on "surrender of a constitutional right"

  8. Edenfield v. Fane

    507 U.S. 761 (1993)   Cited 525 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that rule banning "direct, in-person, uninvited solicitation" from certified public accountants violated the First Amendment and stating that "it is clear that this type of personal solicitation is commercial expression to which the protections of the First Amendment apply"

  9. Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel

    471 U.S. 626 (1985)   Cited 607 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Holding that attorney advertisement promising "if there is no recovery, no legal fees are owed by our clients" was potentially misleading because "members of the public are often unaware of the technical meanings of such terms as 'fees' and 'costs' — terms that, in ordinary usage, might well be virtually interchangeable"

  10. Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States

    559 U.S. 229 (2010)   Cited 282 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protect Action of 2005 plainly covers lawyers as “debt relief agencies”

  11. Section 1602 - Definitions and rules of construction

    15 U.S.C. § 1602   Cited 1,868 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Granting Federal Reserve authority to issue rules to carry out the CARD Act

  12. Section 1045-J - Imposition and disposition of sewer and water fees, rates, rents or charges

    N.Y. Pub. Auth. Law § 1045-J   Cited 27 times
    Allowing the Water Board to “accept credit cards as a means of payment of fees, rates, rent or other charges,” and to impose “a reasonable administrative service fee not to exceed the costs incurred by the water board in connection with such credit card transaction.”

  13. Section 420.05 - Payment of fines, mandatory surcharges and fees by credit card

    N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 420.05   Cited 3 times
    Authorizing New York courts to impose a "reasonable administrative fee" on individuals who pay fines or fees by credit card