Citation network
VA. Pharmacy Bd. Vs. VA. Consumer Council
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 24, 1976
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Distinguished
- Relied / Followed
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
- Relied / Followed
-
Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976) Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. VirginiaSearch
-
of the Fourteenth Amendment. In any event, the prohibition on drug price advertising was upheld. Patterson Drug Co. v. KingerySearch
-
as consumers as a feature distinguishing the Page 425 U. S. 755 present case from Patterson Drug Co. v. KingerySearch
-
Ibid. In the District Court's view, the expression in Valentine v. ChrestensenSearch
-
three States by court decision had struck down their prohibitions on drug price advertising. Florida Board of Pharmacy v. Webb'sSearch
-
Maryland Board of Pharmacy v. Sav-A-LotSearch
-
Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy v. PastorSearch
-
state restrictions Page 425 U. S. 756 on the advertisement of prices for optometrists' services, Head v. NewSearch
-
Mexico Board, 374 U. S. 424 (1963), for eyeglass frames, Williamson v. LeeSearch
-
Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483 (1955), and for dentists' services, Semler v. DentalSearch
-
is to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both. This is clear from the decided cases. In Lamont v. PostmasterSearch
-
to receive political publications sent from abroad. Page 425 U. S. 757 More recently, in Kleindienst v. MandelSearch
-
And in Procunier v. MartinezSearch
-
There are numerous other expressions to the same effect in the Court's decisions. See, e.g., Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCCSearch
-
Martin v. StruthersSearch
-
that, in past decisions, the Court has given some indication that commercial speech is unprotected. In Valentine v. ChrestensenSearch
-
exception to the First Amendment may perhaps be found in Breard v. AlexandriaSearch
-
and it distinguished Martin v. StruthersSearch
-
was avoided in Pittsburgh Press Co. v. HumanSearch
-
proposed by the advertisements, and by their newspaper layout, were themselves illegal. Last Term, in Bigelow v. VirginiaSearch
-
the advertisement related to activity with which, at least in some respects, the State could not interfere. See Roe v. WadeSearch
-
Amendment protection because money is spent to project it, as in a paid advertisement of one form or another. Buckley v. ValeoSearch
-
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. HumanSearch
-
for profit, Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
and even though it may involve a solicitation to purchase or otherwise pay or contribute money. New York Times Co. v. SullivanSearch
-
is noneditorial, and merely reports a fact. Purely factual matter of public interest may claim protection. Bigelow v. VirginiaSearch
-
Chaplinsky v. NewSearch
-
Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
Amendment when they express themselves on the merits of the dispute in order to influence its outcome. See, e.g., NLRB v. GisselSearch
-
NLRB v. VirginiaSearch
-
AFL v. SwingSearch
-
advertisements stating that referral services for legal abortions are available, Bigelow v. VirginiaSearch
-
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. VirginiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial