27 Cited authorities

Los Angeles v. Lyons
461 U.S. 95 (1983) Cited 7,506 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a chokehold
Elrod v. Burns
427 U.S. 347 (1976) Cited 4,222 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that local government could not constitutionally base public employment opportunities on political affiliation or nonaffiliation
Sierra Club v. Morton
405 U.S. 727 (1972) Cited 2,783 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff-organization did not establish Article III standing for injunctive relief where the organization failed to show that its members would be affected by the actions it sought to enjoin
Pulliam v. Allen
466 U.S. 522 (1984) Cited 996 times
Holding that clear legislative intent is required to abrogate common-law principles of legislative and judicial immunity
A M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 738 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that Napster could not invoke § 1008 as a defense to copyright infringement claims because its technology did not fit within the AHRA’s definitions
Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe
402 U.S. 415 (1971) Cited 531 times
Holding injunction on dispersing pamphlets with realtor's home phone number and urging recipients to call him to urge certain political stance was prior restraint that violated First Amendment
United States v. Oregon State Medical Society
343 U.S. 326 (1952) Cited 495 times
Finding "not the slightest reason to doubt the genuineness, good faith or permanence of the changed attitude and strategy of these defendant-appellees," as evidenced by "an overt and visible reversal of policy, carried out by extensive operations which have every appearance of being permanent"
Lamont v. Postmaster General
381 U.S. 301 (1965) Cited 330 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a law requiring addressees of “communist political propaganda” to request in writing that the mailing be delivered violated the addressees' First Amendment rights because the law imposed an impermissible “affirmative obligation” and was “almost certain to have a deterrent effect”
Sammartano v. First Judicial District Court
303 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 320 times
Holding civil complex, including courts and public offices had not "by long tradition or by government fiat" been open to public expression and agreeing with parties that it was a nonpublic forum
Johnson v. California State Bd. of Account
72 F.3d 1427 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 308 times
Stating that "even if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits"

Schumacher et al v. City of Portland et al

27 Cited authorities

Holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a chokehold

Holding that local government could not constitutionally base public employment opportunities on political affiliation or nonaffiliation

Holding that plaintiff-organization did not establish Article III standing for injunctive relief where the organization failed to show that its members would be affected by the actions it sought to enjoin

Holding that clear legislative intent is required to abrogate common-law principles of legislative and judicial immunity

Holding that Napster could not invoke § 1008 as a defense to copyright infringement claims because its technology did not fit within the AHRA’s definitions

Holding injunction on dispersing pamphlets with realtor's home phone number and urging recipients to call him to urge certain political stance was prior restraint that violated First Amendment

Finding "not the slightest reason to doubt the genuineness, good faith or permanence of the changed attitude and strategy of these defendant-appellees," as evidenced by "an overt and visible reversal of policy, carried out by extensive operations which have every appearance of being permanent"

Holding civil complex, including courts and public offices had not "by long tradition or by government fiat" been open to public expression and agreeing with parties that it was a nonpublic forum

Stating that "even if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits"