In re R. M. J.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that for Central Hudson purposes, “inherently -misleading” advertising “may be prohibited entirely”
• advertising may be banned outright only if it is actually or inherently misleading
• “Truthful advertising related to lawful activities is entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. . . . Misleading advertising may be prohibited entirely.”
• “The commercial speech doctrine is ... based in part on certain empirical assumptions as to the benefits of advertising.”
• “Truthful advertising related to lawful activities is entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. . . . Misleading advertising may be prohibited entirely.”
• Missouri Supreme Court rule that limited the categories of information allowable in lawyer advertisements struck down because it excluded relevant, truthful information and promoted no substantial State interest

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

337 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Board of Trustees of State Univ. of NY v. Fox
  Supreme Court· 1989-06-29· cited 1,218×
• Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1983-06-24· cited 941×
• Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1985-06-26· cited 866×
• Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio
  Supreme Court· 1985-05-28· cited 809×
• Edenfield v. Fane
  Supreme Court· 1993-04-26· cited 677×
• United States v. Alvarez
  Supreme Court· 2012-06-28· cited 536×
• Florida Bar v. Went for It, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1995-06-21· cited 525×
• Posadas De Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico
  Supreme Court· 1986-07-01· cited 420×
• In Re RMJ
  Supreme Court· 1982-01-25· cited 400×
• Kasky v. Nike, Inc.
  California Supreme Court· 2002-05-02· cited 394×
• Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P. A. v. United States
  Supreme Court· 2010-03-08· cited 350×
• Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co.
  Supreme Court· 1995-04-19· cited 332×
• United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.
  D.C. Circuit· 2009-05-22· cited 260×
• National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
  Supreme Court· 2018-06-26· cited 258×
• Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Assn.
  Supreme Court· 1988-06-13· cited 233×
• Kasky v. Nike, Inc.
  California Supreme Court· 2003-01-10· cited 218×
• Counterman v. Colorado
  Supreme Court· 2023-06-27· cited 216×
• Lowe v. Securities & Exchange Commission
  Supreme Court· 1985-06-10· cited 209×
• Peel v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of Illinois
  Supreme Court· 1990-06-04· cited 196×
• Gandee v. Glaser
  S.D. Ohio· 1992-02-24· cited 188×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission
  Supreme Court· 1980-06-20· cited 2,526×
• Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1976-05-24· cited 2,355×
• Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.
  Supreme Court· 1978-10-02· cited 1,074×
• Bates v. State Bar of Arizona
  Supreme Court· 1977-06-27· cited 976×
• Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. Public Service Commission
  Supreme Court· 1980-06-20· cited 838×
• Friedman v. Rogers
  Supreme Court· 1979-04-16· cited 415×

Other cases named In re R. M. J.

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• In re R. M. J.
  Supreme Court of Missouri· 1980-12-15· cited 6×
• In re R. M. J.
  Supreme Court· 1981-06-01
• In re R. M. J.
  Supreme Court· 1981-06-29