Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Doyle, [3] the Supreme Court established a standard of but-for causation for claims of official retaliation against speech. However, in the 2006 case of Hartman v. Moore, [4] the Supreme Court established an exception for claims of retaliatory prosecution, requiring that a plaintiff show a lack of probable cause for their prosecution. [5]
Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a "breach of peace" ordinance of the City of Chicago that banned speech that "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance" was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States ...
The U.S. Court of Appeals rejected the city's argument. The Hermosa Beach Municipal Code banning tattoo shops was not narrowly tailored to achieve the city's interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens. The ordinance was too broad and banned speech that is traditionally protected under the First Amendment.
One Book Entitled "Contraception", 51 F.2d 525. As in those cases, The United States, acting as libelant, [6] brought an action in rem against the book "Ulysses", rather than the author or importer, a procedure in the law that Morris Ernst, attorney for the publisher, had previously asked to have inserted when the statute was passed by Congress ...
(The Center Square) – U.S. District Court Judge John Robert Blakey of the Northern District of Illinois is reviewing jury instructions ahead of closing arguments at the public corruption trial ...
In 1996, Gregory Wersal ran for associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. He distributed literature critical of several Minnesota Supreme Court decisions. An ethics complaint was filed against him; however, the board, which was to review the complaint, dismissed the charges and cast doubt upon the constitutionality of the announce clause.
Further, the Wisconsin Supreme Court claimed that the law was also unconstitutionally over broad, reasoning that, in order to prove a person selected a victim in the prohibited manner, the state would need to introduce evidence of a person's prior speech. The court thought this would create a "chilling effect" on free speech in general, as ...
The Georgia Court of Appeals on Monday docketed the appeals filed by nine defendants in the case, and said that “if oral argument is requested and granted” it is tentatively scheduled for Oct. 4.