Citation network
Edenfield Vs. Fane
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 26, 1993
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
-
U.S. 761 (1993) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Edenfield Et Al. V. FaneSearch
-
clearly commercial expression to which First Amendment protections apply. E. g., Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. VirginiaSearch
-
Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748 , 762. Ohralik v. OhioSearch
-
of state laws prohibiting lawyers from engaging in direct, personal solicitation of prospective clients. See Ohralik v. OhioSearch
-
Whatever ambiguities may exist at the margins of the category of commercial speech, see, e. g., Pittsburgh Press Co. v. PittsburghSearch
-
is commercial expression to which the protections of the First Amendment apply. E. g., Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. VirginiaSearch
-
Inc., 425 U. S. 748 , 762 (1976). While we did uphold a ban on in-person solicitation by lawyers in Ohralik v. OhioSearch
-
ubiquitous that solicitation of this sort is removed from the ambit of First Amendment protection, cf. United States v. KokindaSearch
-
see also International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. LeeSearch
-
Bates v. StateSearch
-
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. PublicSearch
-
with the commercial arrangement that it proposes, Friedman v. RogersSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
state interest in order to survive First Amendment scrutiny. Board of Trustees of State University of N. Y. v. FoxSearch
-
stated interests are not the actual interests served by the restriction. See, e. g., Mississippi Univ. for Women v. HoganSearch
-
Metromedia, Inc. v. SanSearch
-
San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
Friedman v. RogersSearch
-
National Soc. of Professional Engineers v. UnitedSearch
-
when serving as independent auditors. United States v. ArthurSearch
-
the State's interest in obscuring the commercial nature of public accounting practice is open to doubt, see Bates v. ArizonaSearch
-
Bolger v. YoungsSearch
-
it recites are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree. See, e. g., Zauderer v. OfficeSearch
-
Linmark Associates, Inc. v. WillingboroSearch
-
Ward v. RockSearch
-
that were present in the circumstances of that case. Zauderer v. OfficeSearch
-
see also Shapero v. KentuckySearch
-
course. That would be inconsistent with the results reached in a number of our prior cases. See, e. g., Zauderer v. OfficeSearch
-
I join the Court's opinion, just as I joined JUSTICE STEVENS' recent opinion for the Court in Cincinnati v. DiscoverySearch
-
of speech. JUSTICE O'CONNOR, dissenting. I continue to believe that this Court took a wrong turn with Bates v. StateSearch
-
this error by finding increasingly unprofessional forms of attorney advertising to be protected speech. See Zauderer v. OfficeSearch
-
Shapero v. KentuckySearch
-
Peel v. AttorneySearch
-
Goldfarb v. VirginiaSearch
-
may target only professional speech that directly harms the listener, I still would dissent in this case. Ohralik v. OhioSearch
-
cannot be squared with Ohralik. Although Ohralik preceded Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. PublicSearch
-
s rule. The majority never analyzes the rule itself under Central Hudson, cf. Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. TourismSearch
-
speech, even where the prohibitory law satisfies Central Hudson. Board of Trustees of State University of N. Y. v. FoxSearch
-
see id., at 476-486, and we recently granted certiorari in a case that poses precisely this issue, see United States v. EdgeSearch
-
of the United States Reports. 783 FEBRUARY 22, 1993 Affirmed on Appeal No. 91-1992. FIGURES ET AL. V. HUNTSearch
-
F. Supp. 1491. No. 92-805. Dewitt Et Al. V. FoleySearch
-
ET AL. Mfirmed on appeal from D. C. N. D. Cal. Certiorari Granted-Vacated and Remanded No. 92-282. PEARSON ET AL. V. PLANNEDSearch
-
AL. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Bray v. AlexandriaSearch
-
F.2d 390 . No. 92-6180. Lacey V. UnitedSearch
-
granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Crosby v. UnitedSearch
-
p. 1.) Miscellaneous Orders. (See also No.9, Orig., ante, p. 7.) No. - - -. NORTH JERSEY SECRETARIAL SCHOOL, INC. V. DEPARTMENTSearch
-
Fairley V. C &Search
-
Syllabus Edenfield Et Al. V. FaneSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial