Robert Cahaly v. Paul LaRosa, III

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that there could be no facial vagueness challenge to a state anti- robocall statute for political calls when conduct was clearly proscribed
• holding that South Carolina's anti-robocall statute was content-based on its face because it applied \to calls with a consumer or political message but [did] not reach calls made for any other purpose\
• holding that South Carolina’s anti-robocall statute was content-based on its face because it applied “to calls with a consumer or political message but [did] not reach calls made for any other purpose”
• concluding that Reed abrogated' the Fourth Circuit’s precedent regarding content neutrality, which treated the government’s stated purpose for the law as controlling even if the law facially differentiated between types of speech
• stating that “officers may have probable cause to arrest based on reasonable mistakes of law” (internal quotations omitted)
• stating that “officers may have probable cause to arrest based on reasonable mistakes of law” (internal quotations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).