Ruling by
William A. FletcherLower Court
U.S. Supreme CourtChallenged Berkeley ordinance was reasonably related to substantial governmental interest in public health and safety and its text was literally true, so it survived plaintiff's First Amendment challenge.
To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
Already a subscriber?
Sign In
Enewsletter Sign-up
Related Content
U.S. Supreme Court, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
After remand, divided 9th Circuit panel allows warning labels on cell phones in Berkeley
Jul. 3, 2019
By Brian Cardile
By Brian Cardile
Technology, Government
Berkeley ends effort to require warnings for cellphones
Oct. 9, 2020
By Winston Cho
By Winston Cho
