Central Hudson Test

87 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• William H. Harrell, Jr., Harrell & Harrell, P.A. v. THE Florida BAR
  608 F.3d 1241· 11th Cir.· 2010-06-17 ·cited 86×
  William Harrell, a personal injury lawyer, challenged nine advertising-related provisions of the Florida Bar's Rules Regulating the Florida Bar on First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment grounds, claiming they were unconstitutionally vague and prohibited protected commercial spe
• State v. Bradford
  787 So. 2d 811· Fla.· 2001-05-31 ·cited 52×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Florida Statute § 817.234(8), which criminalizes solicitation for the purpose of making motor vehicle tort or personal injury protection (PIP) insurance claims, violates the First Amendment because it prohibits commercial speech without requiri
• Don's Porta Signs, Inc. v. City OF Clearwater
  829 F.2d 1051· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-13 ·cited 34×
  A city's regulation of portable signs, even if amounting to a ban, can satisfy the Central Hudson test if it directly advances a substantial governmental interest in aesthetics and is not more extensive than necessary.
• Dunagin v. The City OF Oxford
  718 F.2d 738· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-31 ·cited 30×
• Atwater v. Kortum
  95 So. 3d 85· Fla.· 2012-07-05 ·cited 24×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the First District Court of Appeal's decision striking down a statute prohibiting public adjusters from initiating contact with insurance claimants during a 48-hour period after a claim-producing event. The Court held that the statute regulates
• Curtis v. Thompson
  840 F.2d 1291· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred by denying a preliminary injunction without addressing all five required factors, particularly given the constitutional nature of the claims.
• Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar-Advertising Rules
  762 So. 2d 392· Fla.· 1999-12-17 ·cited 20×
  The Florida Supreme Court considered The Florida Bar's petition to amend the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar regarding attorney advertising. The Court rejected proposed rules that would have subjected out-of-state attorneys to Florida's advertising rules and prohibited certain t
• John Donnelly & Sons v. Campbell
  639 F.2d 6· 1st Cir.· 1980-12-22 ·cited 18×
  The Maine Traveler Information Services Act unconstitutionally abridges First Amendment rights by impermissibly restricting both ideological and commercial speech.
• AD World, Inc. v. Twp. of Doylestown
  672 F.2d 1136· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-05 ·cited 17×
  A township ordinance prohibiting the distribution of advertising material to residences without affirmative consent violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because the publication is considered noncommercial speech and the ordinance is not narrowly tailored to serve a substa
• In re Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar-Advertising
  971 So. 2d 763· Fla.· 2007-12-20 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Supreme Court considered proposed amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar governing attorney advertising. The Court adopted most of The Florida Bar's proposals but rejected or deferred several amendments regarding exemptions from advertising rules, spokespe
• Animal Rights Found. OF Fla., Inc. v. Siegel
  867 So. 2d 451· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-02-06 ·cited 16×
  The Animal Rights Foundation of Florida appealed a temporary injunction prohibiting it from making specific statements and picketing regarding alleged animal abuse at a timeshare resort. The court reversed, holding that the injunction improperly restricted the Foundation's First
• Barr v. State
  731 So. 2d 126· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-04-21 ·cited 16×
  Two chiropractors challenged Florida's statute prohibiting solicitation of motor vehicle accident victims for insurance claims as unconstitutionally overbroad, vague, and violative of due process and equal protection. The court upheld the statute as a valid restriction on commerc
• United States v. Frame
  885 F.2d 1119· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-14 ·cited 15×
  The Beef Promotion and Research Act's mandatory assessment for promotional advertising violates the First Amendment by compelling speech and association with which contributors may disagree.
• Dills v. The City OF Marietta
  674 F.2d 1377· 11th Cir.· 1982-05-06 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the city's time restrictions on portable display signs, as applied to commercial speech, did not directly advance substantial governmental interests and were not narrowly tailored, thus violating the First Amendment.
• Cafe Erotica/We Dare to Bare v. . Fla. Dep't of Transp.
  830 So. 2d 181· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-10-23 ·cited 14×
  Café Erotica challenged a Department of Transportation order requiring a permit for its billboard under Florida's outdoor advertising sign statutes, arguing the regulations constituted an impermissible prior restraint on speech. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that
• Am. Future Sys., Inc. v. The Pa. State Univ.
  752 F.2d 854· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 14×
  Commercial speech is not entitled to First Amendment protection if it is misleading or related to unlawful activity, and AFS's speech falls into both categories.
• Okla. Telecasters Ass'n v. Crisp
  699 F.2d 490· 10th Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's summary dismissal of a similar case (Queensgate) for want of a substantial federal question is binding on this court, and therefore, Oklahoma's laws prohibiting alcoholic beverage advertising do not violate the First Amendment.
• City OF Sunrise v. D.C.A. Homes, Inc.
  421 So. 2d 1084· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-09-08 ·cited 13×
  The City of Sunrise appeals from a trial court decision invalidating its Sign Code (Ordinance 53-A) as unconstitutional. The ordinance restricted off-site billboard advertising to one sign per subdivision for aesthetic reasons. The appellate court reversed, holding that protectio
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. & Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Neff
  325 So. 3d 872· Fla. 4th DCA· 2021-07-14 ·cited 12×
  R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris appealed a $10 million wrongful death verdict (compensatory and punitive damages) in a smoking-related lung cancer case. The court reversed and remanded due to multiple improper arguments made by plaintiff's counsel during closing arguments that th
• Bradford v. State
  740 So. 2d 569· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-06-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that section 817.234(8), Florida Statutes, as applied to the facts, is constitutional and does not punish purely innocent activity.
• FOX v. The Bd. OF Trs. OF the State Univ. OF NEW York & Clifton R. Wharton, Jr.
  841 F.2d 1207· 2d Cir.· 1988-03-11 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the lower court's decision, disagreeing with the majority's application of commercial speech analysis.
• Lamar Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Miss. State TAX Comm'n
  701 F.2d 314· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-11 ·cited 12×
  Mississippi's near-total ban on liquor advertising by intrastate media is an unconstitutional abridgment of commercial speech rights, as the advertising does not propose an illegal transaction and the ban is not narrowly tailored to address misleading information or promote illeg
• Sambo's Rests., Inc. v. The City OF ANN Arbor
  663 F.2d 686· 6th Cir.· 1981-11-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a contract obtained through economic coercion or duress, specifically threatening to withhold a building permit to force a company to waive its First Amendment right to use a name, is not binding.
• Hershkowitz v. State
  744 So. 2d 1268· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-12-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that section 817.234(8) Florida Statutes is constitutional, not violating free speech, vagueness, overbreadth, or equal protection.
• Actmedia, Inc. v. Stroh
  830 F.2d 957· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-12 ·cited 10×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars Actmedia's claims against the ABC and its director based on state law, and the statute at issue does not violate the First Amendment's commercial speech protections.
• Nat'l Advertising Co. v. Town OF Niagara
  942 F.2d 145· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-15 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the town's sign ordinance, as modified by the district court's severance of provisions, was unconstitutional and could not be saved by severance because the remaining provisions were too intertwined and the ordinance would be unworkable.
• Am. Future Sys., Inc. v. The Pa. State Univ.
  688 F.2d 907· 3d Cir.· 1982-08-09 ·cited 9×
  The Third Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that res judicata did not bar American Future Systems' (AFS) claim that Penn State's censorship of its commercial speech demonstrations violated the First Amendment. The court also found that the s
• Kortum v. Sink
  54 So. 3d 1012· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-12-29 ·cited 8×
  A public adjuster challenged Florida's statutory ban on public adjuster solicitation for 48 hours following an insurable loss, arguing it violates commercial free speech rights. The court held that the statute unambiguously prohibits all solicitation during the 48-hour period and
• Nat'l Advertising Co. v. The City & Cnty. OF Denver
  912 F.2d 405· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Denver's new ordinance regulating billboards near freeways is facially constitutional under the First Amendment, and that National's claims for damages and injunctive relief were properly denied.
• Nat'l Advertising Co. v. Town OF Babylon
  900 F.2d 551· 2d Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 7×
  Municipal ordinances restricting commercial and noncommercial speech are unconstitutional if they fail to state a substantial governmental interest or directly advance it, and if they discriminate between commercial and noncommercial speech without justification. Unconstitutional
• Project 80's, Inc. v. City OF Pocatello & the City of Idaho Falls
  876 F.2d 711· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 7×
  Ordinances banning all uninvited door-to-door solicitation violate the First Amendment because they are not narrowly tailored and less restrictive alternatives exist to serve the cities' interests.
• Innovative Database Sys. v. Morales
  990 F.2d 217· 5th Cir.· 1993-05-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Texas laws restricting the sale and use of motor vehicle accident information and prohibiting chiropractors from soliciting vulnerable accident victims violate the First Amendment's protection of commercial free speech.
• Discovery Network, Inc. v. City OF Cincinnati
  946 F.2d 464· 6th Cir.· 1991-10-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Cincinnati's ordinance banning the distribution of commercial handbills via newsracks on public property was not a 'reasonable fit' between the city's asserted interests and the means chosen, thus violating the First Amendment.
• Nat'l Funeral Servs., Inc. v. Rockefeller
  870 F.2d 136· 4th Cir.· 1989-03-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the West Virginia regulations on funeral directors' speech are permissible time, place, and manner restrictions serving a significant government interest.
• Royal v. McKENNA
  747 F.2d 1211· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-06 ·cited 6×
  A district court lacks the statutory authority to order notice to potential class members in suits brought under 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), and plaintiffs' counsel cannot send such notices to encourage joinder due to ethical concerns regarding solicitation.
• Nat'l Advertising Co. v. City of Miami
  287 F. Supp. 2d 1349· S.D. Fla.· 2003-09-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that National Advertising Company lacks standing to challenge provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance that restrict noncommercial speech because its interest in noncommercial speech is de minimis (2%).
• Beckwith v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg.
  667 So. 2d 450· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-01-30 ·cited 4×
  A hearing aid specialist challenged the revocation of his license for canvassing by telephone to offer free hearing tests, arguing the prohibition violated his First Amendment commercial speech rights. The court held that while the state has a substantial interest in regulating h
• Hous. Opportunities Made Equal, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc.
  943 F.2d 644· 6th Cir.· 1991-09-05 ·cited 4×
  A complaint alleging a violation of the Fair Housing Act based on the single publication of an advertisement using a small number of all-white models, or based on an aggregate message from multiple unrelated advertisements, does not state a cognizable claim without more.
• Buddy Cramer v. Skinner
  931 F.2d 1020· 5th Cir.· 1991-05-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Cramer has standing to challenge the Love Field amendment and that the amendment does not violate his right to interstate travel.
• Tobinick v. Novella
  S.D. Fla.· 2015-10-02 ·cited 3×
  The Court held that the articles at issue were not commercial speech and therefore could not form the basis of a Lanham Act claim, leading to summary judgment for the defendant on both the Lanham Act and unfair competition claims.
• Action Outdoor Advertising JV, L.L.C. v. Town of Shalimar
  377 F. Supp. 2d 1178· N.D. Fla.· 2005-03-29 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge certain provisions of the sign ordinance due to failure to demonstrate injury-in-fact, but granted standing for commercial speech claims related to billboard bans.
• State v. Nash N. Cronin
  774 So. 2d 871· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-12-29 ·cited 3×
  Florida appealed the dismissal of criminal charges against chiropractors and clinics under the anti-solicitation statute, section 817.234(8). The court held that while fraudulent intent is not a statutory element, the statute as written violates the First Amendment and Florida Co
• Lockridge v. City of Oldsmar
  475 F. Supp. 2d 1240· M.D. Fla.· 2007-02-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the entire sign ordinance, but has standing to challenge the specific provision under which his applications were denied, and that the case is moot due to the ordinance's repeal without evidence of bad faith.
• Harris v. Agency for Health Care Admin.
  671 So. 2d 230· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-04-08 ·cited 2×
  Harris, a licensed mental health counselor, challenges a Board disciplinary action requiring him to include "LMHC" or "licensed mental health counselor" on promotional materials, arguing the requirement violates his First Amendment right to free speech. The Florida District Court
• Vanna White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.
  989 F.2d 1512· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-18 ·cited 2×
• Adolph Coors Co. v. Brady
  944 F.2d 1543· 10th Cir.· 1991-09-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Coors, finding that a material issue of fact exists regarding whether the prohibition on disclosing alcohol content directly advances the government's interest in preventing 'strength wars'.
• Guardian Plans Inc. v. Teague
  870 F.2d 123· 4th Cir.· 1989-03-07 ·cited 2×
• Astro Limousine Serv., Inc. v. Hillsborough Cnty. Aviation Auth.
  678 F. Supp. 1561· M.D. Fla.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority's regulations on limousine solicitation at Tampa International Airport did not violate the First Amendment's commercial free speech clause, nor did they constitute unfair competition or exceed the Authority's jurisdic
• In re Nat'l Serv. Corp. v. Nat'l Serv. Corp.
  742 F.2d 859· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the proposed billboard message constituted pure speech, and the injunction against it was an impermissible prior restraint on First Amendment rights.
• KH Outdoor, LLC v. Clay Cnty.
  410 F. Supp. 2d 1160· M.D. Fla.· 2006-01-12 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges to the old sign ordinance were moot because the ordinance was repealed and replaced by a new one, and the provisions that caused the denial of the permits were either removed or cured, or were severable.