Patriotic Veterans, Incorporat v. State of Indiana
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff, a veterans’ group, contends that an anti-robocall statute, Ind. Code § 24-5-14-5, violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, which contains a similar limit, has been sustained by two circuits. See Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald, Co., 768 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2014), affirmed on other grounds, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 663, 193 L.Ed.2d 571 (2016); Van Bergen v. Minnesota, 59 F.3d 1541, 1549-56 (8th Cir. 1995); Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995). The…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Reed v. Town of GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. GomezSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
- Rowan v. United States Post Office DepartmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Richard T. Van Bergen v. State of Minnesota Hubert H. Humphrey, Iii, in His Capacity as Attorney General of the State of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1995
- Jose Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Sebastian Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019
- Noah Duguid v. Facebook, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- Josephine Havlak Photographer, Inc. v. Village of Twin OaksCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2017
- Brickman v. Facebook, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2017
- Gallion v. Charter Commc'ns Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2018
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.