Legal Opinion
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Schmoke
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided August 31, 1995No. Nos. 94-1431, 94-1432PublishedCited by 96 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge NIEMEYER wrote the opinion, in which Judge HAMILTON and Senior Judge BUTZNER joined.
OPINION
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
We decide in this case whether Ordinance 288 enacted by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland, prohibiting the placement of stationary, outdoor “advertising that advertises alcoholic beverages” in certain areas of the City, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendment protections of commercial speech. The district court concluded, after applying the four-part test for evaluating commercial speech announced in Central Hudson Gas &…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Board of Trustees of State Univ. of NY v. FoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San DiegoSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by96 opinions
- Albert Clatterbuck v. City of CharlottesvilleCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2013
- Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc. v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2013
- Pitt News v. PappertCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2004
- St. Croix Waterway v. George MeyerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1999
- Ademiluyi v. Pennymac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLCDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2013
91 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.