§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

12 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Lanier

    520 U.S. 259 (1997)   Cited 2,398 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should look to prior judicial decisions interpreting a statute in considering whether it is vague

  2. Jennings v. Rodriguez

    138 S. Ct. 830 (2018)   Cited 1,043 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the court erred in invoking the canon of constitutional avoidance when interpreting an unambiguous immigration statute

  3. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

    561 U.S. 1 (2010)   Cited 855 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiffs had standing because a statute criminalized knowingly providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, and the plaintiffs had provided support to groups designated as terrorist organizations and planned to provide similar support in the future

  4. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co.

    348 U.S. 483 (1955)   Cited 2,201 times
    Holding that, absent invidious discrimination, government may further its legitimate interests incrementally

  5. Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel

    471 U.S. 626 (1985)   Cited 608 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"

  6. Nat'l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra

    138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018)   Cited 221 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Zauderer had no application because the compelled notice required plaintiffs to disclose information about state-sponsored services, including abortion, which was "anything but an 'uncontroversial' topic"

  7. McDonald v. Board of Election

    394 U.S. 802 (1969)   Cited 694 times
    Holding that Illinois did not violate the Equal Protection Clause by refusing to give unsentenced inmates an absentee ballot, when there was no record evidence that inmates would be prevented from voting on election day

  8. Connecticut Bar Ass'n v. U.S.

    620 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2010)   Cited 123 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the mandated disclosures of certain “language to be included in debt relief agency advertisements” did not compel “inaccurate or misleading disclosures” because nothing “preclude[d] an attorney from providing ... more information than is contained in the mandated disclosures to ensure accurately informed choice”

  9. Italian Colors Rest. v. Becerra

    878 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2018)   Cited 53 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding California statute prohibiting retailers from imposing surcharge on payments by credit card violated First Amendment

  10. Dana's Railroad Supply v. Attorney General

    807 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2015)   Cited 38 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Finding a law that permitted a price differential to be charged to customers if called a discount but that prohibited such a disparity if referred to as a surcharge regulated speech rather than conduct and was not exempt from Central Hudson scrutiny as a restriction on speech relating to illegal conduct