Haeg v. Huerta

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• denying a gag order under the Gentile standard because a less restrictive means—simply ordering the parties to comply with Rule 3.6—was available
• “Thus, 17 a court should issue a gag order only if (1) the attorneys' speech presents a substantial 18 likelihood of material prejudice to the proceedings; (2) the proposed protective order is 19 narrowly tailored; (3
• “[A]ny system of prior restraints of expression ... bear[s] a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” (quoting New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971) (per curiam)). Accordingly, the court will not order the relief requested in items (A

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).