Steve Cooksey v. Michelle Futrell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff “experienced a non- speculative and objectively reasonable chilling effect” when he alleged specific conduct he would have undertaken absent the defendant’s actions
• stating that a court considering a motion to dismiss must “draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff”
• noting that a claimant need not show he ceased activities altogether to show an injury in fact
• noting that but for the government’s regulation, the plaintiff would not have had “a speech-chilling uncertainty about the legality of private conversations and correspondence” and would have resumed his advice column
• finding objectively reasonable self-censorship in light of \explicit warning\ from state \that it will continue to monitor the plaintiff's speech in the future\
• finding the redressability requirement met where a decision favoring the plaintiff \would mean the [defendant] would be enjoined from enforcing\ an alleged unconstitutional statute, \and/or [the statute] would be deemed unconstitutional.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).