Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Nike, Inc. Vs. Kasky

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 26, 2003

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

75 entries 11 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. Cox Broadcasting Corp. Vs. Cohn US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1975
  2. Warth Vs. Seldin US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1975
  3. Mills Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · May 23, 1966
  4. Steffel Vs. Thompson US Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1974
  5. Rosenbloom Vs. Metromedia US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1971
  6. Organization for a Better AustIn Vs. Keefe US Supreme Court · May 17, 1971
  7. Time, Inc. Vs. Hill US Supreme Court · Jan 09, 1967
  8. Fort Wayne Books, Inc. Vs. Indiana US Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1989
  9. Construction Laborers Vs. Curry US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1963
  10. New York Times Co. Vs. Sullivan US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1964
  11. Bennett Vs. Spear US Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1997
  12. U.S. 654 (2003) October Term, 2002 Syllabus Nike, Inc., Et Al. V. Kasky
    Search
  13. Rodriguez of Puerto Rico, Lawrence E. Long of South Dakota, William H. Sorrell of Vermont, and Darrell V. McGraw
    Search
  14. Inc. v. Johnson
    Search
  15. whether the Court agreed or disagreed with the state court's disposition of the issue. Thus, in Construction Laborers v. Curry
    Search
  16. in Mercantile Nat. Bank at Dallas v. Langdeau
    Search
  17. and in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo
    Search
  18. defined in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
    Search
  19. See Flynt v. Ohio
    Search
  20. hear Nike's claims is that neither party has standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. See Whitmore v. Arkansas
    Search
  21. ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish
    Search
  22. Ashwander v. TVA
    Search
  23. Gertz v. Robert
    Search
  24. such broad protection for misstatements about public figures that are not animated by malice. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
    Search
  25. commercial speech, does not protect false or misleading commercial speech, see Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public
    Search
  26. to actions of the opposing party, and that a favorable decision will likely redress the harm. Bennett v. Spear
    Search
  27. proceedings are not complete-indeed, even if enforcement is no more than a future threat. See, e. g., Houston v. Hill
    Search
  28. U. S. 452 , 459 (1974) (same). Cf. First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
    Search
  29. And a threat of a civil action, like the threat of a criminal action, can chill speech. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
    Search
  30. In ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish
    Search
  31. state court and obtained that judgment-would have lacked standing to bring a case in federal court. See also Virginia v. Hicks
    Search
  32. issue, even if the determination of that issue occurs in the midst of ongoing litigation. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn
    Search
  33. pending appeal, or (as here) denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint. E. g., National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie
    Search
  34. imposed strict liability on the newspaper, granted summary judgment in favor of the victim. See Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn
    Search
  35. was erroneous, would have permitted the litigation to go forward. Cf. Brief for Appellants in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn
    Search
  36. Similarly in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo
    Search
  37. leaving a factual issue whether those circumstances applied. Cf. Brief for Appellant in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo
    Search
  38. Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y. v. Public
    Search
  39. see also, e. g., Gertz v. Robert
    Search
  40. labor conditions). Ibid. See, e. g., Bolger v. Youngs
    Search
  41. Riley v. National
    Search
  42. It does not propose the presentation or sale of a product or any other commercial transaction, United States v. United
    Search
  43. the public controversy surrounding Nike, Bigelow v. Virginia
    Search
  44. Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N. Y. v. Fox
    Search
  45. where a different balance of concerns calls for different applications of First Amendment principles. Cf. Ohralik v. Ohio
    Search
  46. It thereby helps that marketplace better allocate private goods and services. See Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia
    Search
  47. Cortez v. Purolator
    Search
  48. tend to keep the energies of public enforcement agencies focused upon more purely economic harm. Cf. Forsyth County v. Nationalist
    Search
  49. see also Rosenberger v. Rector
    Search
  50. can coexist with First Amendment protections designed to provide room for public debate. Compare, e. g., NLRB v. Gissel
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial