Central Hudson Test

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

• Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Pete Beach
  322 F. Supp. 2d 1335· M.D. Fla.· 2004-01-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's facial challenge to the prior sign ordinance was moot due to the enactment of an amended ordinance, and that takings claims were not ripe. The court also found that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages or attorneys' fees.
• Borgner v. Brooks
  152 F. Supp. 2d 1317· N.D. Fla.· 2001-03-21 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Florida statute, as applied to Dr. Borgner's advertising of his AAID and ABOI/ID credentials, violates the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of commercial speech because the state failed to demonstrate that the restrictions directly advance a substant
• Vinson v. Humana, Inc.
  975 F. Supp. 2d 430· M.D. Fla.· 1999-11-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the psychotherapist-patient privilege under federal common law does not protect the identity of the patient or facts showing the occurrence of psychotherapy, only the substance of confidential communications.
• Outdoor Sys., Inc. v. City OF Mesa
  997 F.2d 604· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-30 ·cited 1×
  The sign codes do not facially violate the First Amendment or state constitutional free speech guarantees, nor do they effect an impermissible taking of property. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint.
• Resort Dev. Int'l, Inc. v. City of Panama City Beach
  636 F. Supp. 1078· N.D. Fla.· 1986-05-01 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the amended ordinance, as a content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction on commercial speech, does not violate the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause.
• Scoma Chiropractic, P.A. v. Nat'l Spine & Pain Ctrs. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-11-03
  Pain Management Consultants sent unsolicited faxes advertising telemedicine services to Scoma Chiropractic in violation of the TCPA's junk fax provision, and Scoma sought class certification to represent recipients of those faxes. The court held that the TCPA's junk fax provision
• Weister v. Vantage Point AI, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-10-12
  The court denied the motion to certify an interlocutory appeal because the defendant failed to demonstrate a substantial ground for difference of opinion on the controlling questions of law.
• Gale Force Roofing & Restoration LLC v. Brown
  N.D. Fla.· 2021-07-11
  Florida's ban on written or electronic advertisements encouraging consumers to contact contractors or public adjusters regarding insurance claims for roof damage violates the First Amendment as an impermissible restriction on commercial speech that fails intermediate scrutiny. Th
• FF Cosmetics FL Inc. v. City of Miami Beach
  2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99631· S.D. Fla.· 2015-07-14
  The court held that the plaintiffs' motion to exclude expert testimony was denied because the expert's qualifications and methodology were sufficiently reliable, and disclosure deficiencies were harmless.
• Maverick Media Grp. v. Hillsborough Cnty.
  508 F. Supp. 2d 1126· M.D. Fla.· 2007-05-16
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, denying plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granting defendant's motion for summary judgment.
• Gould v. Harkness
  470 F. Supp. 2d 1357· S.D. Fla.· 2006-08-08
  The court held that the Florida Bar's potential restrictions on an out-of-state attorney's advertisements do not violate the First Amendment because the advertisements concern unlawful activity (unauthorized practice of law) and are misleading.
• Hansbrough v. State
  757 So. 2d 1282· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-05-31
  Hansbrough, a chiropractor charged with unlawful solicitation for PIP insurance claims under Florida Statute § 817.234(8), pled no contest to a lesser offense while reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The Fourth District affirmed, rejecting his cons
• Mason v. Florida Bar
  29 F. Supp. 2d 1329· M.D. Fla.· 1998-12-15
  The Florida Bar's requirement that an attorney include a disclaimer when advertising a 'Highest Rating' from Martindale-Hubbell does not violate the attorney's First Amendment rights or the void-for-vagueness doctrine.
• Katt v. Dykhouse
  983 F.2d 690· 6th Cir.· 1992-11-23
  The court held that res judicata does not bar the action and the first prong of the Central Hudson test is met because the underlying activity is lawful and the offer is speech.
• Project 80'S, Inc. v. City OF Pocatello & the City of Idaho Falls
  942 F.2d 635· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-19
  City ordinances banning uninvited door-to-door solicitation violate the First Amendment because they are not narrowly tailored to serve substantial governmental interests, even under the revised 'reasonable fit' standard from Fox.
• State v. Nelson
  553 So. 2d 195· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-10-19
  Florida challenged a county ordinance banning solicitation for off-beach goods and services on beaches. The court affirmed the lower court's finding that the ordinance violated the First Amendment and Florida Constitution as an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech.