10 Cited authorities

Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc.
512 U.S. 753 (1994) Cited 636 times
Holding that an injunction against anti-abortion protesters was not viewpoint discriminatory because "none of the restrictions imposed by the court were directed at the contents of petitioner's message."
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, Western N.Y
519 U.S. 357 (1997) Cited 280 times
Holding that an injunction provision that required abortion protestors to move away from abortion clinic patients who asked to be left alone did not violate the First Amendment
RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal
552 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2009) Cited 465 times
Holding "[p]urely speculative harm will not suffice" to satisfy the burden of showing irreparable injury
Nielander v. Brd. of County Com'rs
582 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir. 2009) Cited 321 times
Holding that county attorneys act on behalf of the state, not the county, in Kansas
Attorney General of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods
565 F.3d 769 (10th Cir. 2009) Cited 227 times
Holding appeals court's scope of review is "quite narrow" when considering whether a district court properly admitted expert testimony in a bench trial
Independent Living Ctr. v. Maxwell-Jolly
572 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 200 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state that consents to suit in state court cannot invoke a sovereign immunity defense after removing the suit to federal court
Planned Parenthood v. Amer. Coal. of Life
290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 167 times
Holding that use of deposition summaries was within the court's discretion under 611
U.S. v. Magleby
241 F.3d 1306 (10th Cir. 2001) Cited 88 times
Affirming mixed-motivation jury instruction and rejecting sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge
U.S. v. Viefhaus
168 F.3d 392 (10th Cir. 1999) Cited 61 times
Finding the racially inflammatory "evidence offered [was] clearly was probative of [the defendant's] state of mind and tend[ed] to counter his allegation of benign purpose."
Section 248 - Freedom of access to clinic entrances
18 U.S.C. § 248 Cited 277 times 4 Legal Analyses
Imposing criminal liability on anyone who "intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services"

United States of America v. Dillard

10 Cited authorities

Holding that an injunction against anti-abortion protesters was not viewpoint discriminatory because "none of the restrictions imposed by the court were directed at the contents of petitioner's message."

Holding that an injunction provision that required abortion protestors to move away from abortion clinic patients who asked to be left alone did not violate the First Amendment

Holding "[p]urely speculative harm will not suffice" to satisfy the burden of showing irreparable injury

Holding that county attorneys act on behalf of the state, not the county, in Kansas

Holding appeals court's scope of review is "quite narrow" when considering whether a district court properly admitted expert testimony in a bench trial

Holding that a state that consents to suit in state court cannot invoke a sovereign immunity defense after removing the suit to federal court

Holding that use of deposition summaries was within the court's discretion under 611

Affirming mixed-motivation jury instruction and rejecting sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge

Finding the racially inflammatory "evidence offered [was] clearly was probative of [the defendant's] state of mind and tend[ed] to counter his allegation of benign purpose."

Imposing criminal liability on anyone who "intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services"