IN RE CARTER

Citator

Cited By

• Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1985)
  …he “unconstitutionally overbroad” definition, the Court of Appeals declared the statute as a whole to be null and void.5 [*496] The defendant state and county officials separately appealed to this Court. We noted probable jurisdiction in both cases, 469 U. S. 813 (1984).6 HH I — I The Court of Appeals was of the view that neither Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957), nor later cases should be read to include within the definition of obscenity those materials that appeal to only normal sexual appetit…
• Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1985)
  …ntent of his Daikon Shield advertisement, appellant filed this appeal. Appellant also claims that the manner in which he was disciplined for running his drunken driving advertisement violated his right to due process. We noted probable jurisdiction, 469 U. S. 813 (1984), and now affirm in part and reverse in part.6 [*637] HH HH There is no longer any room to doubt that what has come to be known as “commercial speech” is entitled to the protection of the First Amendment, albeit to protection somewhat less ex…
• Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, 470 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1985)
  …nably and illegally impaired the rights of the railroads under the Basic Agreements.20 Amtrak appealed to this Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1252, arguing that the reimbursement formula in § 405(f) is constitutional, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 469 U. S. 813 (1984). The railroads cross-appealed, contending that any reimbursement violates due process. We deferred ruling on whether jurisdiction over the cross-appeal was proper until consideration of the cases on the merits. Ibid. 21 [*465] 1 — 1 1 — 1 T…