- Quickdraw McLaw
- 8 Comments
- 150 Views
- Today is Constitution Day. [Newsweek]
- A new book introduces people to the 100 constitutional law cases they should know. [Volokh Conspiracy]
- Yesterday’s comments brought up a small argument about what the important Nevada constitutional cases. What do think are the most important Nevada cases today?
Maybe not constitutional per se, but that SFR HOA case back in 2014/2015 really sent a ripple effect throughout the state…and we are still picking up the pieces since
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878)
This is a Nevada case? Sure, it has effects on Nevada, just as every other state, but it's not a Nevada specific case.
HEY!! I always liked Pennoyer v. Neff
@ 11:12
No on Neff – International Shoe v Washington
Maybe Scotti can lend a copy of his poor beaten up pocket constitution he threw in his tantrum and lend it to Betsey Gonzalez.
The most important Nevada Supreme Court cases are the ones I got hired to work on and the client paid the bill.
GENTILE v. STATE BAR OF NEVADA, 501 US 1030 (1991)
1. The speech of lawyers representing clients in pending cases may be regulated under a less demanding standard than the "clear and present danger" of actual prejudice or imminent threat standard established for regulation of the press during pending proceedings. See, e.g., Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683.
2. A lawyer's right to free speech is extremely circumscribed in the courtroom, see, e.g., Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1, 8, 72 S.Ct. 451, 454, 96 L.Ed. 717, and, in a pending case, is limited outside the courtroom as well, see, e.g., Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1522, 16 L.Ed.2d 600. Cf. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 81 L.Ed.2d 17. Moreover, this Court's decisions dealing with a lawyer's First Amendment right to solicit business and advertise have not suggested that lawyers are protected to the same extent as those engaged in other businesses, but have balanced the State's interest in regulating a specialized profession against a lawyer's First Amendment interest in the kind of speech at issue. See, e.g., Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 53 L.Ed.2d 810. Pp. 1065-1075.
3. The "substantial likelihood of material prejudice" standard is a constitutionally permissible balance between the First Amendment rights of attorneys in pending cases and the State's interest in fair trials. Lawyers in such cases are key participants in the criminal justice system, and the State may demand some adherence to that system's precepts in regulating their speech and conduct.