Yurkew v. Sinclair

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 actual process of tattooing is not sufficiently communicative” to come within the First Amendment, because “there has been no showing that the normal observer ... would regard the process of injecting dye into a person’s skin through the use of needles as communicative”
• regardless of “whether ... the image conveyed by the tattoo[ ] is an art form or amounts to art,” “the process of tattooing is undeniably conduct” that is subject to the Spence test

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).