Cases

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Parsons Evergreene, LLC ) ASBCA No. 58634 ) Under Contract No. FA8903-04-D-8703 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Douglas S. Oles, Esq. James F. Nagle, Esq.

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. This case directs our attention to the extent by which a town may abridge expressive activity, protected under the First Amendment and the Massachusetts Constitution, as a valid exercise of its zoning power. The Town of Mendon, Massachusetts (“Mendon”) has set forth a veritable maze of zoning restrictions that are singularly applicable to adult-entertainm

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SAYLOR, District Judge. This action arises from the efforts of plaintiff Showtime Entertainment LLC to open a club in Mendon, Massachusetts, that will feature live nude dancing. Adult-entertainment establishments in Mendon are required both to obtain a license under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 183A and to comply with applicable zoning by

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge: This case involves a constitutional challenge to a local law which requires public utility providers to post warning signs on wooden utility poles that have been treated with certain chemical' preservatives. On January 15, 2015, the Plaintiffs PSEG Long Island LLC (“PSEG”) and the Long Island Lighting Company d/b/a LIPA (“LIPA”, t

OPINION WILLIAMS, Judge. Introduction This tax refund case presents the issue of whether investments of $450,000 which generated over $40 million in tax losses possessed economic substance. In 1999, the Er-vin brothers sold their cable business, netting over $40 million in profit. That same year, each of the three Ervin brothers, through his limited liability corporation (LLC), sim

578 F.Supp.2d 875 (2008) RTM MEDIA, L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF HOUSTON, Defendant. Civil Case No. 4:07-cv-2944. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. September 29, 2008. *876 Robert Cudlipp Williams, Buck Keenan Gage Little & Lindley, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff. James R. Moriarty, P

*1252 MARCUS, Circuit Judge: At issue in this case is the constitutionality of the City of Neptune Beach’s sign code. Appellant Solantic, LLC (“Solantic”) argues that the sign code violates the First Amendment in at least two ways: first, it exempts from regulation certain categories of signs based on

MEMORANDUM OPINION GOLDBERG, District Judge. The American Freedom Defense Initiative (“AFDI”) claims that the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (“SEPTA”) has violated its First Amendment rights by refusing to post an advertisement on buses that SEPTA asserts is “patently false” and offends “minimal civility standards.” Currently before me is Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary inj

COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MORGAN T. ZURN LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER VICE CHANCELLOR 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734 May 27, 2026 Mic

Justice THOMASdelivered the opinion of the Court. The town of Gilbert, Arizona (or Town), has adopted a comprehensive code governing the manner in which people may display outdoor signs. Gilbert, Ariz., Land Development Code (Sign Code or Code), ch. 1, § 4.402 (2005). 1 The Sign Code identifies various categories of signs bas

ACCEPTED 03-15-00293-CV 8312780 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

THOMPSON, J. *101In this case we consider whether certain restrictions applicable to noncommercial speech and expressive activities at two large outdoor retail centers owned by defendant and respondent The Irvine Company, LLC (Defendant) are constitutional under the free speech protections established in article I, section 2 of the California C

USCA11 Case: 22-12335 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 08/19/2024 Page: 1 of 36 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-12335 ____________________ TAXINET CORP., a South Dakota corpo

OPINION FISHER, Circuit Judge: Two provisions in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 make it unlawful for a motor vehicle occupant to hire or attempt to hire a person for work at another location from a stopped car that impedes traffic, or for a person to be hired in such a manner. These provisions raise First Amendment concerns because they restrict and penalize t

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2019 WY 112 OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2019 November 6, 2019 LEWIS ALAN DUGAN, Appellant (Defendant), v. S-18-0296 THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff). Appeal from the District Court of Converse County

336 F.3d 1153 CENTER FOR FAIR PUBLIC POLICY, an Arizona non-profit corporation; Dream Palace, a dba of Liberty Entertainment Group, L.L.C., an Arizona Limited Liability Company; Castle Superstore Corporation, an Arizona corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, andL.J. Concepts, Inc., Plaintiff,v.MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA; Richard M. Romley, in his official capacity as Maricopa County Attorney; City of Phoenix, a municipal corporation, Defenda

OPINION & ORDER PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: This case involves a challenge under the First Amendment to the refusal by the Metropolitan Transit Authority (“MTA”), the public authority which provides mass transit in the New York City metropolitan area, to permit a political advertisement to run on the exteriors of buses in New York City. Plaintiff American Freedom De

B Plaintiffs next focus on ordinary severability principles. Applying those principles, the question before the Court is whether (i) to invalidate the entire 1991 robocall restriction, as plaintiffs want, or (ii) to invalidate just the 2015 government-debt exception and sever it from the remainder of the statute, as the Government wants. We agree with the Government that w

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge MOORE, in which Chief Judge PROST and Circuit Judges NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, and STOLL join. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge. O’MALLEY, in which Circuit Judge WALLACH joins. Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part filed by Circuit Judge DYK, in which Circuit Judges LOURIE and REYNA join with respect to parts I, II, III, an

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, dissenting: Although I strongly disagree with the result reached by the majority, I write separately to directly address a question studiously avoided by this Court — -What level of First Amendment scrutiny applies to the challenged provisions of the Florida Firearm Owners Privacy Act (the “Act”)1 targeting speech?2