Citation network
Bates Vs. State Bar of Arizona
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 27, 1977
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Bates v. StateSearch
-
Bar of Arizona - 433 U.S. 350 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Bates v. StateSearch
-
Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977) Bates v. StateSearch
-
wielding the power of the State over the practice of law is not subject to attack under the Sherman Act. Parker v. BrownSearch
-
Goldfarb v. VirginiaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Cantor v. DetroitSearch
-
assuring informed and reliable decisionmaking, is entitled to some First Amendment protection, Virginia Pharmacy Board v. VirginiaSearch
-
to professional advertising, a context where it is not necessary to further its intended objective, cf. Bigelow v. VirginiaSearch
-
most Page 433 U. S. 352 legal services may be performed legally by the citizen for himself. See Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
P.2d at 643. The regulation thus was held to be shielded from the Sherman Act by the state action exemption of Parker v. BrownSearch
-
advertising have survived constitutional challenge in the past, citing, along with other cases, Williamson v. LeeSearch
-
Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483 (1955), and Semler v. DentalSearch
-
Although recognizing that Virginia Pharmacy Board v. VirginiaSearch
-
Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748 (1976), and Bigelow v. VirginiaSearch
-
special considerations might bear on the advertising of professional services by lawyers. See Virginia Pharmacy Board v. VirginiaSearch
-
probable jurisdiction. 429 U.S. 813 (1976). Page 433 U. S. 359 II The Sherman Act In Parker v. BrownSearch
-
this Court held that the Sherman Act was not intended to apply against certain state action. See also Olsen v. SmithSearch
-
Court held, that the Parker exemption also bars the instant Sherman Act claim. We agree. Of course, Parker v. BrownSearch
-
considered the state action exemption to the Sherman Act and found it inapplicable for one reason or another. Goldfarb v. VirginiaSearch
-
U.S. at 421 U. S. 792 . See Cohen v. HurleySearch
-
We conclude that the Arizona Supreme Court's determination that appellants' Sherman Act claim is barred by the Parker v. BrownSearch
-
exemption must be affirmed. III The First Amendment A Last Term, in Virginia Pharmacy Board v. VirginiaSearch
-
observation that our cases long have protected speech even though it is in the form of a paid advertisement, Buckley v. ValeoSearch
-
in a form that is sold for profit, Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
or in the form of a solicitation to pay or contribute money, New York Times Co. v. SullivanSearch
-
the speaker's interest is largely economic, the Court has protected such speech in certain contexts. See, e.g., NLRB v. GisselSearch
-
though entirely commercial, may often carry information of import to significant issues of the day. See Bigelow v. VirginiaSearch
-
services, and thus performs an indispensable role in the allocation of resources in a free enterprise system. See FTC v. ProcterSearch
-
Ibid. See also Linmark Associates, Inc. v. WillingboroSearch
-
advertised by the appellants at standardized rates. App. 459-478. Indeed, until the decision of this Court in Goldfarb v. VirginiaSearch
-
we view as dubious any justification that is based on the benefits of public ignorance. See Virginia Pharmacy Board v. VirginiaSearch
-
These two arguments seem dubious, at best. Neither distinguishes lawyers from others, see Virginia Pharmacy Board v. VirginiaSearch
-
that the person making the attack demonstrate that in fact his specific conduct was protected. See, e.g., Bigelow v. VirginiaSearch
-
that it might be applied unconstitutionally in circumstances other than those before the court. See, e.g., Broadrick v. OklahomaSearch
-
Ashwander v. TVASearch
-
who contemplates protected activity might be discouraged by the in terrorem effect of the statute. See NAACP v. ButtonSearch
-
analysis applies weakly, if at all, in the ordinary commercial context. As was acknowledged in Virginia Pharmacy Board v. VirginiaSearch
-
it to professional advertising, a context where it is not necessary to further its intended objective. Cf. Bigelow v. VirginiaSearch
-
we need only note that most legal services may be performed legally by the citizen for himself. See Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Advertising that is false, deceptive, or misleading, of course, is subject to restraint. See Virginia Pharmacy Board v. VirginiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial