24 Cited authorities

Buckley v. Valeo
424 U.S. 1 (1976) Cited 3,410 times 37 Legal Analyses
Holding that a public financing law does not "abridge, restrict, or censor" expression
Broadrick v. Oklahoma
413 U.S. 601 (1973) Cited 3,433 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that Oklahoma may regulate the political activities of its state employees
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"
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"
Virginia v. Hicks
539 U.S. 113 (2003) Cited 581 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"
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
Champlin Rfg. Co. v. Commission
286 U.S. 210 (1932) Cited 413 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"
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"

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

24 Cited authorities

Holding that a public financing law does not "abridge, restrict, or censor" expression

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

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

Holding society and consumers both have a strong interest "in the free flow of commercial information"

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"

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

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"

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"