WASHINGTON ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1983)
  …the three types of mailings violated the First Amendment.5 526 F. Supp. 823 (1981). Appellants brought this direct appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1252, see United States v. Darusmont, 449 U. S. 292, 293 (1981), and we noted probable jurisdiction, 456 U. S. 970 (1982). II Beginning with Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U. S. 809 (1975), this Court extended the protection of the First Amendment to commercial speech.6 Nonetheless, our decisions have recognized “the ‘common-sense’ distinction between speech proposi…
• Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983)
  …ough the dissenters in Caban discussed the question of retroactivity, see 441 U. S., at 401, 415-416, that question was not addressed in the Court’s opinion. We postponed consideration of our jurisdiction until after hearing argument on the merits. 456 U. S. 970 (1982). Our review of the record persuades us that appellant did in fact draw into question the validity of the New York statutory scheme on the ground of its being repugnant to the Federal Constitution, that the New York Court of Appeals upheld tha…
• Exxon Corp. v. Eagerton, 462 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1983)
  …e of Alabama to refund the taxes paid under protest. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed, holding Act 79-434 valid in its entirety. 404 So. 2d 1 (1981). Appellants appealed to this Court under 28 U. S. C. §1257(2). We noted probable jurisdiction. 456 U. S. 970 (1982). We now affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. HH HH We deal first with appellants’ contention that the application of the pass-through prohibition to gas was pre-empted [*181…