24 Cited authorities

  1. Buckley v. Valeo

    424 U.S. 1 (1976)   Cited 3,155 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a public financing law does not "abridge, restrict, or censor" expression
  2. Broadrick v. Oklahoma

    413 U.S. 601 (1973)   Cited 3,192 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Oklahoma may regulate the political activities of its state employees
  3. City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent

    466 U.S. 789 (1984)   Cited 1,563 times
    Holding that a total restriction on a certain type of visual advertising is narrowly tailored because, by banning the type of signs that the city determined to constitute “visual clutter and blight,” the city “did no more than eliminate the exact source of the evil it sought to remedy”
  4. Va. Pharmacy Bd. v. Va. Consumer Council

    425 U.S. 748 (1976)   Cited 1,624 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state statute banning the advertisement or dissemination of prescription drug price information by licensed pharmacists violates the First Amendment
  5. Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego

    453 U.S. 490 (1981)   Cited 953 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there can be no “substantial doubt that the twin goals that the ordinance seeks to further—traffic safety and the appearance of the city—are substantial governmental goals”
  6. Virginia v. Hicks

    539 U.S. 113 (2003)   Cited 444 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant had not shown that the contested policy "prohibits a ‘substantial’ amount of protected speech in relation to its many legitimate applications"
  7. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona

    433 U.S. 350 (1977)   Cited 1,007 times   5 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
  8. People v. Casey

    95 N.Y.2d 354 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 1,206 times
    In Case, we stated the rule broadly: "A valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution" (id. at 99; citation omitted).
  9. Champlin Rfg. Co. v. Commission

    286 U.S. 210 (1932)   Cited 409 times
    Holding that unless it is evident that the legislature would not have enacted the valid provision without the invalid provision, "the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law"
  10. GET OUTDOORS v. SAN DIEGO

    506 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 78 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"