Robert Reynolds v. Douglas Middleton

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that reports of roadway solicitations in certain areas may be sufficient to implicate government’s interest in traffic safety, though no injuries had yet occurred
• explaining that “argument unsupported by the evidence will not suffice to carry the government’s burden”
• requiring the government to show it “tried to use the available alternatives to address its safety concerns”
• finding that roadside solicitation ordinance “prohibited] all forms of leafletting, which is one of the most important forms of political speech .,. as well as soliciting any kind of contribution, whether political or charitable, or selling or attempting to sell goods or services”
• invalidating ordinance that applied to “all County roads, regardless of location or traffic volume . . . thus “prohibit[ing] all [expressive conduct] even where those activities would not be dangerous.
• comparing “broad swath of speech prohibited by the [roadside solicitation ordinance]” to evidence that roadside solicitation problems only posed a risk in one section of the county, and noting that government never tried or considered less restrictive alternatives

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).