Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. case brief summary
515 U.S. 618 (1995)
CASE FACTS
Petitioner, a state Bar, proposed an amendment to its rules governing attorney advertisement that sought to impose a 30-day restriction on targeted direct-mail solicitation of accident victims and their relatives. Respondents, an attorney referral service and an attorney, sued petitioner, alleging the proposed rules were violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,U.S. Constitutional amends. I and XIV. Both parties moved for summary judgment and a magistrate recommended petitioner's motion be granted. The district court rejected this recommendation and entered summary judgment in favor of respondents, which the circuit court affirmed.
DISCUSSION
District court's judgment affirmed, because petitioner's restriction withstood the three-pronged scrutiny test for restrictions on commercial speech protected under the First Amendment, as petitioners had a substantial interest in protecting citizens from invasive conduct and the remedy for such invasiveness was narrow in scope and duration.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Constitutional Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.
515 U.S. 618 (1995)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appeal from judgment on writ of
certiorari from United States Court of Appeals for Eleventh Circuit,
which affirmed district court's grant of summary judgment to
respondents, an attorney referral service and an attorney, in
respondents' action alleging the petitioner state Bar's rules
violated U.S. Constitutional amends. I and XIV.CASE FACTS
Petitioner, a state Bar, proposed an amendment to its rules governing attorney advertisement that sought to impose a 30-day restriction on targeted direct-mail solicitation of accident victims and their relatives. Respondents, an attorney referral service and an attorney, sued petitioner, alleging the proposed rules were violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,U.S. Constitutional amends. I and XIV. Both parties moved for summary judgment and a magistrate recommended petitioner's motion be granted. The district court rejected this recommendation and entered summary judgment in favor of respondents, which the circuit court affirmed.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the Court reversed because it determined petitioner's rules withstood the three-pronged scrutiny test for restrictions on commercial speech protected under the First Amendment, as petitioners had a substantial interest in protecting citizens from invasive conduct and the remedy for such invasiveness was narrow in scope and duration.
District court's judgment affirmed, because petitioner's restriction withstood the three-pronged scrutiny test for restrictions on commercial speech protected under the First Amendment, as petitioners had a substantial interest in protecting citizens from invasive conduct and the remedy for such invasiveness was narrow in scope and duration.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Constitutional Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.
No comments:
Post a Comment