Jimmy Yamada v. William Snipes

How courts have described this case

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

• applying exacting scrutiny to requirement that political advertisements include disclaimer stating whether they are broadcast or published with approval of a candidate
• “nothing in Citizens United suggests that a state may not require disclaimers for political advertising that is not the functional equivalent of a federal electioneering communication”
• describing the statute as imposing “only a modest burden on First Amendment rights”
• rejecting vagueness challenge to \expenditure\ definition that included \anything of value\
• “We therefore join the First, Fourth and Tenth Circuits in holding that the ‘appeal to vote’ language is not unconstitutionally vague.”
• see also Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11-341 (clarifying that the date the statute became effective was the same day the amendment occurred)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).