Search for: "Hudson v. US Government" Results 141 - 160 of 598
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 May 2020, 1:27 pm by Adam Schwartz
First, the Maine law regulates commercial speech, which the Supreme Court has described as “expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience,” in an opinion called Central Hudson Gas v. [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 12:35 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Without this, § 2(a) cannot satisfy the Central Hudson test. [read post]
27 Apr 2009, 11:45 am
Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Hudson v Michigan (2006) and Herring v United States (2009) have sparked a new debate over the efficacy of exclusionary remedy, and once again drawn its continued viability as a constitutional mandate into question. [read post]
29 Sep 2023, 10:04 am by Ben Sperry
Bonta, the First Amendment, and KOSA It’s Only Gonna Get Harder for the Government In Bonta, much as in the Arkansas federal district court in NetChoice v. [read post]
20 Dec 2017, 1:48 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Hargis—because the TTAB’s determination could in some circumstances be used to stop the mark’s use, perhaps that directly advances the government’s interest. [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 2:52 am by Wim Alberts
Alternatively, the government argued that trademarks are commercial speech implicating only the intermediate level of scrutiny set forth in the famous Central Hudson case. [read post]