Cases

Gants, J. On January 31, 2007, the Enforcement Section of the Securities Division of the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth (Secretary) filed an administrative complaint alleging that three “hedge funds” offered by Bulldog Investors General Partnership operating under the trade name “Bulldog Investors” had violated § 301 of G. L. c. 110A of the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act (Massachusetts act) by offering unregis

BROWN, J. I respectfully dissent. I In 1942, the United States Supreme Court, like a wizard trained at Hogwarts, waved its wand and “plucked the commercial doctrine out of thin *978air.” (Kozinski & Banner, Who’s Afraid of Commercial Speech (1990) 76 Va. L.Rev. 627, 627.) Unfortunately, the court’s doctrinal wizardry

BROWN, J. I respectfully dissent. I In 1942, the United States Supreme Court, like a wizard trained at Hogwarts, waved its wand and “plucked the commercial doctrine out of thin *978air.” (Kozinski & Banner, Who’s Afraid of Commercial Speech (1990) 76 Va. L.Rev. 627, 627.) Unfortunately, the court’s doctrinal wizardry

134 F.3d 87 BAD FROG BREWERY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY, Anthony J. Casale, LawrenceJ. Gedda, Edward F. Kelly, individually and asmembers of the New York State LiquorAuthority, Defendants-Appellees. No. 1080, Docket 97-7949. United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. Argued Oct. 22, 1997.Decided Jan. 15, 1998.

JON 0. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge: A picture of a frog with the second of its four unwebbed “fingers” extended in a manner evocative of a well known human gesture of insult has presented this Court with significant issues concerning First Amendment protections for commercial speech. The frog appears on labels that Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. (“Bad Frog”) sought permission to use on bottles of its beer products. The New York State Liqu