State v. Paulinkonis

How courts have described this case

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

• “[Pjointing out the alternatives available does not necessarily mean advocating the rejected least restrictive test.”
• “speech restrictions are content-neutral when they can be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech” (internal quotations omitted)
• “[I]t is beyond dispute that the right to distribute newspapers is protected under the First Amendment . . . .”
• “The government has a substantial interest in protecting the health and welfare of its citizens. Additionally, both the Supreme Court and this Court have found that aesthetics can be a substantial government interest.” (Citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).