18 Cited authorities

Broadrick v. Oklahoma
413 U.S. 601 (1973) Cited 3,432 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that Oklahoma may regulate the political activities of its state employees
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
City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent
466 U.S. 789 (1984) Cited 1,727 times
Holding that a ban on posting signs on public property could permissibly prevent speakers "from communicating with the public in a certain manner"
Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego
453 U.S. 490 (1981) Cited 1,030 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that traffic safety is a "substantial governmental goal"
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona
433 U.S. 350 (1977) Cited 1,041 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state rule barring lawyers from advertising their services was not challengeable under the Sherman Act but also that the state rule, as applied, violated the attorneys' First Amendment free speech rights
People v. Casey
95 N.Y.2d 354 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 1,343 times
Finding nonhearsay allegations including the complainant's supporting deposition, which stated that the order had been issued, was in effect, and that she had personally observed the defendant engage in conduct that violated the order could help to cure an alleged defect in the instrument premised on the failure to provide the underlying court order
People v. Stuart
100 N.Y.2d 412 (N.Y. 2003) Cited 246 times
Paraphrasing N.Y. Penal Law § 120.45
GET OUTDOORS v. SAN DIEGO
506 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 96 times
Holding that plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the permit process where it could not "show that it would ever be genuinely threatened by an unconstitutional prior restraint in this case"
People v. Nelson
69 N.Y.2d 302 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 108 times
In People v. Nelson (69 N.Y.2d 302), this Court upheld a jostling statute as against a vagueness challenge even though the statute did not specifically require larcenous intent.
Amaverick Media Group v. Hillsborough County
528 F.3d 817 (11th Cir. 2008) Cited 41 times
Holding that a sign permit applicant lacks a redressable injury to challenge the constitutionality of a sign ordinance where the permit could have been denied on the basis of some alternative but unchallenged regulation

The People, Appellant,v.On Sight Mobile Opticians, Respondent.

18 Cited authorities

Holding that Oklahoma may regulate the political activities of its state employees

Holding that a restriction on commercial speech must directly advance a substantial governmental interest

Holding that a ban on posting signs on public property could permissibly prevent speakers "from communicating with the public in a certain manner"

Holding that traffic safety is a "substantial governmental goal"

Holding that a state rule barring lawyers from advertising their services was not challengeable under the Sherman Act but also that the state rule, as applied, violated the attorneys' First Amendment free speech rights

Paraphrasing N.Y. Penal Law § 120.45

Holding that plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the permit process where it could not "show that it would ever be genuinely threatened by an unconstitutional prior restraint in this case"

In People v. Nelson (69 N.Y.2d 302), this Court upheld a jostling statute as against a vagueness challenge even though the statute did not specifically require larcenous intent.

Holding that a sign permit applicant lacks a redressable injury to challenge the constitutionality of a sign ordinance where the permit could have been denied on the basis of some alternative but unchallenged regulation