FRED H. EDENFIELD, et al. v. SCOTT FANE
Supreme Court Cases
507 U.S. 761 (1993)
Related Cases
CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS v. REAGAN NATIONAL ADVERTISING OF AUSTIN, LLC, ET AL.
Decided:
"[W]hether, under this Court’s precedents interpreting the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the City’s regulation is subject to strict scrutiny."
IANCU v. BRUNETTI
Decided:
MATAL v. TAM
Decided:
SORRELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VERMONT, et al. v. IMS HEALTH INC. ET AL
Decided:
Do Vermonts mandatory limits on candidate expenditures violate the First Amendment as interpreted in Buckley v. Valeo (1976)?
MIKE JOHANNS, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, et al., v. LIVESTOCK MARKETING ASSOCIATION et al.
Decided:
Did the 8th Circuit err in holding that the 1985 Beef Promotion & Research Act, and regulations promulgated there under which impose assessments on beef producers and importers to fund research, education, and promotional activities carried out by special administrative bodies created by Congress for the express purpose of furthering important governmental objectives under direct supervision of Secretary of Agriculture are unconstitutional and unenforceable?
UNITED STATES AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE v. UNITED FOODS, INC.
Decided:
Does a compelled generic advertising program for mushroom producers violate the commercial speech rights of a mushroom producer who does not wish to participate in the program?
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT v. UNITED REPORTING PUBLISHING CORPORATION
Decided:
Whether a California state law that prohibits the release of arrestees' personal addresses if used for commercial purposes, but allows the release of such information for other purposes, violates the First Amendment.
GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION, INC., ETC., et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
Decided:
Whether a federal law banning truthful, nonmisleading broadcast ads of private casino gaming violates commercial free-speech rights.
DAN GLICKMAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE v. WILEMAN BROTHERS & ELLIOTT, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture may constitutionally require handlers of California peaches, nectarines, and plums to fund generic advertising of those fruits.
44 LIQUORMART, INC. AND PEOPLES SUPER LIQUOR STORES, INC. v. RHODE ISLAND AND RHODE ISLAND LIQUOR STORES ASSOCIATION
Decided:
Whether a state may constitutionally prohibit truthful, non-misleading price advertising regarding alcoholic beverages.
FLORIDA BAR v. WENT FOR IT, INC., AND JOHN T. BLAKELY
Decided:
Do the Florida Bar rules prohibiting direct mail solicitation of accident victims violate the free speech of personal injury attorneys?
ROBERT E. RUBIN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY v. COORS BREWING COMPANY
Decided:
Whether the Federal Alcohol Administration Act may constitutionally prohibit brewers from displaying the alcohol content of their beer on the beer's label.
SILVIA S. IBANEZ v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY
Decided:
Whether the government may constitutionally prohibit an attorney from including in her advertising truthful references to the facts that she is a certified public accountant and a certified financial planner.
UNITED STATES AND FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. EDGE BROADCASTING COMPANY T/A POWER 94
Decided:
Whether the government may constitutionally prohibit a broadcaster licensed in a state that bans lotteries from broadcasting lottery advertisements, even when the vast majority of the broadcaster's audience resides in a state that allows lotteries.
CITY OF CINCINNATI v. DISCOVERY NETWORK, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether a city ordinance prohibiting the distribution of commercial flyers from news racks on city-owned property violates the First Amendment.
DOMINIC P. GENTILE v. STATE BAR OF NEVADA
Decided:
(1) Whether a state may constitutionally prohibit an attorney from making statements to the press that he or she knows or reasonably should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding and, if so, (2) whether the State Bar of Nevada properly applied the rule in this case.
GARY E. PEEL v. ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS
Decided:
Whether a rule barring lawyers from advertising certification as a legal specialist violated the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause.
SHAPERO v. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Decided:
Whether a Kentucky rule barring the mailing or delivery of written advertisements related to a "specific event . . . involving or relating to the addressee . . . as distinct from the general public" violated the First Amendment.
ZAUDERER v. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Decided:
Whether a series of Ohio laws prohibiting advertising by lawyers about a specific legal problem, containing illustration, or omitting crucial information violated the First Amendment.
BOLGER et al. v. YOUNGS DRUG PRODUCTS CORP.
Decided:
Whether a federal law prohibiting the mailing of unsolicited advertisements for contraceptives violates the First Amendment.
in re R. M. J.
Decided:
Whether a Missouri law limiting areas of information that can be advertised by lawyers violates freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.
CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK
Decided:
Whether a state-issued ban on promotional advertising by public utility companies in order to conserve energy resources violates the First Amendment.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK
Decided:
Whether an order of appellee New York Public Service Commission that prohibits the inclusion by appellant and other public utility companies in monthly bills of inserts discussing controversial issues of public policy directly infringes the freedom of speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and thus is invalid.
VILLAGE OF SCHAUMBURG v. CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT et al.
Decided:
Whether a city ordinancewhich bars door-to-door solicitation by charities that cannot prove that 75% of their proceeds go directly to charitable purposesviolates the 1st and 14th Amendment free speech rights of solicitors.
FRIEDMAN et al. v. ROGERS et al.
Decided:
In re PRIMUS
Decided:
Whether the sanctioning of an ACLU lawyer for informng a woman through direct mail about legal assistance available from the ACLU violated speech and associational freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.
OHRALIK v. OHIO STATE BAR ASSN.
Decided:
Whether the Bar, acting with state authorization, constitutionally may discipline a lawyer for soliciting clients in person, for pecuniary gain, under circumstances likely to pose dangers that the State has a right to prevent.
BATES et al. v. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
Decided:
Whether an Arizona rule that restricts attorney advertising violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY et al. v. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC., et al.
Decided:
Under the First Amendment as applied to the states, can a licensed pharmacist be disciplined for unprofessional conduct if he "publishes, advertises or promotes, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, any amount, price, fee, premium, discount, rebate or credit terms . . . for any drugs which may be dispensed only by prescription"?
BIGELOW v. VIRGINIA
Decided:
An advertisement carried in appellants newspaper led to his conviction for a violation of a Virginia statute that made it a misdemeanor, by the sale or circulation of any publication, to encourage or prompt the procuring of an abortion. The issue is whether the editor-appellant's First Amendment rights were unconstitutionally abridged by the statute.
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
Decided:
Whether a broadcast licensee's general policy of not selling advertising time to individuals or groups wishing to speak out on issues they consider important violates the Federal Communications Act or the First Amendment.
CAMMARANO et ux. v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
BREARD v. ALEXANDRIA
Decided:
Whether a "Green River Ordiance" which bans the soliciting of individuals on their property without their consent violates the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment freedom of speech rights of magazine solicitors.
DONALDSON, POSTMASTER GENERAL, v. READ MAGAZINE, INC. ET AL.
Decided:
Whether an order issued by the Postmaster General that mail to Read Magazine be marked "fraudulent" and returned to sender violated the First Amendment
MURDOCK v. PENNSYLVANIA (CITY OF JEANNETTE)
Decided:
Whether a Pennsylvania ordinance imposing a tax on sale of religious materials violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
JONES v. OPELIKA
Decided:
LOVELL v. CITY OF GRIFFIN
Decided:
Whether a local ordinance that prohibited the distribution of literature of any kind, and in any way, without first obtaining written permission from the city manager violated the First Amendment.
HALTER v. NEBRASKA
Decided:
Does a Nebraska statute criminalizing the use of the American flag on advertisements violate the Fourteenth Amendment?