Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

RubIn Vs. Coors Brewing Co.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 19, 1995

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

54 entries 3 linked 51 unlinked
Show
  1. New York Times Co. Vs. Sullivan US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1964
  2. Edenfield Vs. Fane US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1993
  3. Valentine Vs. Chrestensen US Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1942
  4. Rubin v. Coors
    Search
  5. Brewing Co. - 514 U.S. 476 (1995) October Term, 1994 Syllabus Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury V. Coors
    Search
  6. under the test set out in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public
    Search
  7. strength, which could lead to greater alcoholism and its attendant social costs. Cf. Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism
    Search
  8. Government has offered nothing to suggest that States are in need of federal assistance in this regard. United States v. Edge
    Search
  9. the relief sought, but a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded. Adolph Coors Co. v. Brady
    Search
  10. F.2d 1543 (1991). Applying the framework set out in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public
    Search
  11. the advertising ban. On the case's second appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court. Adolph Coors Co. v. Bentsen
    Search
  12. F.3d 355 (1993). Following our recent decision in Edenfield v. Fane
    Search
  13. speech. Though we once took the position that the First Amendment does not protect commercial speech, see Valentine v. Chrestensen
    Search
  14. U. S. 52 (1942), we repudiated that position in Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia
    Search
  15. Central Hudson, 447 U. S., at 562 (quoting Ohralik v. Ohio
    Search
  16. a far more deferential approach to restrictions on commercial speech concerning alcohol. Relying on United States v. Edge
    Search
  17. Broadcasting Co., 509 U. S. 418 (1993), and Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism
    Search
  18. the Government argues that we also have applied this principle to speech concerning alcohol. See California v. LaRue
    Search
  19. the Government's point in response to an alternative claim that Puerto Rico's regulation was inconsistent with Carey v. Population
    Search
  20. Services Int'l, 431 U. S. 678 (1977), and Bigelow v. Virginia
    Search
  21. e)(2). In Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism
    Search
  22. state efforts to regulate alcohol under the Twenty-first Amendment. The Solicitor General directs us to United States v. Edge
    Search
  23. interest in suppressing strength wars sufficiently to justify the ban. We agree. Just two Terms ago, in Edenfield v. Fane
    Search
  24. Adolph Coors Co. v. Bent
    Search
  25. s opinion indicates. Instead of relying on the formulaic approach announced in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public
    Search
  26. I The First Amendment generally protects the right not to speak as well as the right to speak. See McIntyre v. Ohio
    Search
  27. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo
    Search
  28. cf. Wallace v. Jaffree
    Search
  29. not only permitted to prohibit misleading speech that would be protected in other contexts, Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia
    Search
  30. citing Bates v. State
    Search
  31. id., at 562, quoting Ohralik v. Ohio
    Search
  32. Bolger v. Youngs
    Search
  33. see also Cincinnati v. Discovery
    Search
  34. false and misleading statements are entitled to First Amendment protection in the political realm, see, e. g., Gertz v. Robert
    Search
  35. speech that matters.''' Vir ginia Bd. of Pharmacy, 425 U. S., at 777-778 (concurring opinion), quoting Gertz v. Robert
    Search
  36. doctrine in its current form is that the Court sometimes takes such paternalistic motives seriously. See United States v. Edge
    Search
  37. Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism
    Search
  38. Syllabus Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury V. Coors
    Search
  39. Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public
    Search
  40. Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism
    Search
  41. United States v. Edge
    Search
  42. Adolph Coors Co. v. Brady
    Search
  43. the District Court. Adolph Coors Co. v. Bentsen
    Search
  44. Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia
    Search
  45. Ohralik v. Ohio
    Search
  46. See California v. LaRue
    Search
  47. Carey v. Population
    Search
  48. and Bigelow v. Virginia
    Search
  49. See McIntyre v. Ohio
    Search
  50. Bates v. State
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial