Kirk Homoky v. City of Hobart, Indiana (mem. dec.)

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that NIFLA “struck down the requirement that clinics post information about services they did not provide” (emphasis added)
• finding disclosure regulation not unduly burdensome in part because it permitted 10 businesses to disclose “additional information”
• endorsing proposition that Zauderer is merely the “exception to the general rule of Central Hudson”
• finding challengers failed to demonstrate any hardship tipping the 22 balance in their favor where their “First Amendment claim is unlikely to succeed”
• finding an ordinance uncontroversial in part because it was “a short-hand description of the warning the FCC already requires cell phone manufacturers to include in their user manuals”
• explaining that “one size does not fit all in commercial speech cases” and contrasting Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), with Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).