Stuart Investment Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a private entity charged with regulating speech at a public forum was a “state actor” under the “public function” test when it was regulating such speech
• holding that because an entity “performs an 15 exclusively and traditionally public function within a public forum, we focus only upon the public 16 function test”
• noting that the Supreme Court in Brentwood “list[ed] seven approaches to the issue”
• noting that the Supreme Court in Brentwood “list[ed] seven approaches to the issue”
• recognizing “the fact-intensive nature of the 16 [state action] inquiry”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).