15 Cited authorities

United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.
529 U.S. 803 (2000) Cited 829 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a statute was content based because it “applies only to channels primarily dedicated to sexually explicit adult programming or other programming that is indecent”
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel
471 U.S. 626 (1985) Cited 608 times 54 Legal Analyses
Holding that attorney advertisement promising "if there is no recovery, no legal fees are owed by our clients" was potentially misleading because "members of the public are often unaware of the technical meanings of such terms as 'fees' and 'costs' — terms that, in ordinary usage, might well be virtually interchangeable"
National Soc. of Professional Engineers v. U.S.
435 U.S. 679 (1978) Cited 741 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding agreement among engineers to refuse to discuss prices with potential customers until after the initial selection of an engineer was per se illegal
Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
492 U.S. 115 (1989) Cited 462 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that indecency regulation of telephone messages was content-based restriction subject to strict scrutiny
Kovacs v. Cooper
336 U.S. 77 (1949) Cited 772 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, consistent with the First Amendment, the government may regulate the volume of speech and the hours and place of public discussion
United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.
566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009) Cited 207 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the verb "include" is non-limiting where the "most obvious way" to limit a definition would be to write it the way Congress wrote other limited definitions nearby
United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
449 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006) Cited 82 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that “[e]ach cigarette manufacturing company gains a small amount (less than 10%) of smokers through ‘switching’ or changing brands. Only about 9% of adult smokers switch among [the major tobacco manufacturer's] brands.”
Liggett Group Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
102 F. Supp. 2d 518 (D.N.J. 2000) Cited 91 times
Holding nonmovant must provide "sufficient opposition" to motion to transfer
Entertainment Software Ass'n v. Blagojevich
469 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2006) Cited 51 times
Holding that the Illinois Attorney General's concurrent prosecutorial authority was sufficient to establish the requisite connection for Ex parte Young, even where the Attorney General did not ordinarily prosecute regular criminal cases
Cook Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp.
333 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 31 times
Holding that because neither the plaintiff's product or the defendant's product had made it to the marketplace, "translat[ing] [the effect of defendant's breach of contract] into a dollar amount of lost expected profits to [the plaintiff] is impossible"
Section 1333 - Labeling
15 U.S.C. § 1333 Cited 111 times 2 Legal Analyses
Requiring "Surgeon General's Warning" labels on cigarettes

USA v. Philip Morris USA, et al

15 Cited authorities

Holding that a statute was content based because it “applies only to channels primarily dedicated to sexually explicit adult programming or other programming that is indecent”

Holding agreement among engineers to refuse to discuss prices with potential customers until after the initial selection of an engineer was per se illegal

Holding that indecency regulation of telephone messages was content-based restriction subject to strict scrutiny

Holding that, consistent with the First Amendment, the government may regulate the volume of speech and the hours and place of public discussion

Holding that the verb "include" is non-limiting where the "most obvious way" to limit a definition would be to write it the way Congress wrote other limited definitions nearby

Finding that “[e]ach cigarette manufacturing company gains a small amount (less than 10%) of smokers through ‘switching’ or changing brands. Only about 9% of adult smokers switch among [the major tobacco manufacturer's] brands.”

Holding nonmovant must provide "sufficient opposition" to motion to transfer

Holding that the Illinois Attorney General's concurrent prosecutorial authority was sufficient to establish the requisite connection for Ex parte Young, even where the Attorney General did not ordinarily prosecute regular criminal cases

Holding that because neither the plaintiff's product or the defendant's product had made it to the marketplace, "translat[ing] [the effect of defendant's breach of contract] into a dollar amount of lost expected profits to [the plaintiff] is impossible"

Requiring "Surgeon General's Warning" labels on cigarettes