Tenth Circuit· 10/26/2005

United States v. Wenger

Citations

427 F.3d 840
68 Fed. R. Serv. 805
2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 23137
2005 WL 2767182

How courts have described this case

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

holding that, in the context of securities fraud, “[g]ood faith reliance on counsel . . . is merely one factor a jury may consider when determining whether a defendant acted willfully”
concluding that requirement that publicists disclose the amount of consideration they are receiving “impose[s] little burden on speech” as it “takes only a slight effort to tell one’s listeners or readers” that they have been paid for the publication or broadcast
“It is undisputed that the government has an interest in protecting consumers from being misled.”
quoted Justice Stevens’s line from 44 Liquormart but included no additional language suggesting a same-sovereign requirement; the case did not turn on such a requirement
“While disinterested investment advice will still qualify for full First Amendment protection, paid publicists’ speech is grounded in commercial transactions of the kind that the state has traditionally regulated.”
applying Zauderer to compelled disclosure in newsletter and radio program

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hartz, Anderson, Tymkovich

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

47 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named United States v. Wenger

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.