§Why CasetextPricing

Carrington et al v. Duke University et al

Reply BRIEF in Support of the Duke Defendants' Motion Regarding Attorney-Initiated and Attorney-Sanctioned Client Contact with Media - re Response in Opposition to Motion, 10 MOTION Attorney-Initiated and Attorney-Sanctioned Contact with Media, 11 Memorandum

5 Cited authorities

  1. Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada

    501 U.S. 1030 (1991)   Cited 507 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a lawyer's communications "could be limited" where the lawyer's speech presents a "substantial likelihood of material prejudice" to a pending case

  2. Bridges v. California

    314 U.S. 252 (1941)   Cited 598 times
    Reversing contempt convictions

  3. In re Sawyer

    360 U.S. 622 (1959)   Cited 119 times
    Involving the suspension of an attorney for impugning a judge's integrity

  4. Hirschkop v. Snead

    594 F.2d 356 (4th Cir. 1979)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that "other matters that are reasonably likely to interfere with a fair trial" is too vague

  5. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 163,831 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."