Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Fax.com v USA 323 F.3d 649

Fax.com v USA 323 F.3d 649

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4|Likes:
Published by Thalia Sanders

More info:

Published by: Thalia Sanders on Aug 23, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,-
Date/Time of Request: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:50 EasternClient Identifier: PATRON ACCESSDatabase: FEDFINDCitation Text: 323 F.3d 649Lines: 706Documents: 1Images: 0
business law 2
The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,West and their affiliates.
United States Court of Appeals,Eighth Circuit.State of MISSOURI, ex rel. Jeremiah W. (Jay)NIXON, Attorney General, Plaintiff-Appellant,United States of America, Intervenor/ Plaintiff-Appellant,v.AMERICAN BLAST FAX, INC., a Texas corpora-tion not authorized to transact business in Missourias a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee,Fax.com, Inc. Movant-Appellee.State of California; State of Alaska; State of Arkan-sas; State of Connecticut; State of Colorado; Dis-trict of Columbia; State of Florida; State of Idaho;State of Illinois; State of Iowa; State of Kentucky;State of Maryland; State of Michigan; State of Min-nesota; State of New Mexico; State of Oregon,State of South Dakota; State of Texas; State of Ver-mont; State of West Virginia, Amici Curiae on be-half of Appellants,American Business Media; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.;ACS Systems, Incorporated; Micro General Cor-poration, Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellees.
Nos. 02-2705, 02-2707.
Submitted: Jan. 13, 2003.Filed: March 21, 2003.Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 3,2003.FN*FN*JudgeTheodore McMillianand Judge Morris S. Arnolddid not participate in theconsideration or decision of this matter.Motion to Stay Mandate Denied July 22, 2003.State of Missouri brought action against business,alleging that business violated provision of theTelephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) bysending unsolicited advertising via facsimile trans-missions, and seeking injunctive relief and civilpenalties. The federal government intervened. TheUnited States District Court for the Eastern Districtof Missouri,Stephen Nathaniel Limbaugh, Senior District Judge,196 F.Supp.2d 920,dismissed. State and federal government appealed. The Court of Ap-peals,Murphy, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) govern-ment demonstrated a substantial interest in prevent-ing advertising cost shifting and interference withfax machines that such unwanted advertising placeson the recipients; (2) TCPA provision was reason-ably related to substantial governmental interest;and (3) provision was not more restrictive or ex-tensive than necessary to accomplish substantialgovernmental interest.Reversed and remanded.West Headnotes
[1]Constitutional Law 92 1539
92Constitutional Law92XVIIIFreedom of Speech, Expression, andPress92XVIII(A)In General 92XVIII(A)2Commercial Speech in Gen-eral92k1539k. False, Untruthful, Decept- ive, or Misleading Speech.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 92k90.2)
Constitutional Law 92 1540
92Constitutional Law92XVIIIFreedom of Speech, Expression, andPress92XVIII(A)In General 92XVIII(A)2Commercial Speech in Gen-eral92k1540k.UnlawfulSpeech or Activ- ities.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 92k90.2)If commercial speech concerns unlawful activity oris misleading, then the speech is not protected bythe First Amendment.U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.Page 1323 F.3d 649, 28 Communications Reg. (P&F) 1119
(Cite as: 323 F.3d 649)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
[2]Constitutional Law 92 1541
92Constitutional Law92XVIIIFreedom of Speech, Expression, andPress92XVIII(A)In General 92XVIII(A)2Commercial Speech in Gen-eral92k1541k.Reasonableness; Relation- ship to Governmental Interest.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 92k90.2)For purpose of analyzing whether statute regulatingcommercial speech violates First Amendment, theCourt of Appeals asks whether the asserted govern-mental interest is substantial; if it is, then the Courtmust determine whether the regulation directly ad-vances the governmental interest asserted, and, fi-nally, whether it is not more extensive than is ne-cessary to serve that interest.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 1.
[3]Federal Courts 170B 776
170BFederal Courts170BVIIICourts of Appeals170BVIII(K)Scope, Standards, and Extent 170BVIII(K)1In General170Bk776. Trial DeNovo.Most Cited CasesThe Court of Appeals reviews an order grantingsummary judgment de novo.Fed.RulesCiv.Proc.Rule 56(c), 28 U.S.C.A.
[4]Constitutional Law 92 1504
92Constitutional Law92XVIIIFreedom of Speech, Expression, andPress92XVIII(A)In General 92XVIII(A)1In General92k1504k.Exerciseof Police Power; Relationship to Governmental Interest or PublicWelfare.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 92k90(3))Government, in defending a First Amendment at-tack against statute regulating speech, is not re-quired to produce empirical studies to show the sig-nificance of the harm it seeks to remedy; it maydemonstrate the substantiality of its interest withanecdotes, history, consensus, and simple commonsense.U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.
[5]Constitutional Law 92 2145
92Constitutional Law92XVIIIFreedom of Speech, Expression, andPress92XVIII(W)Telecommunications and Com- puters92k2143Telephones92k2145k.Solicitation; Telemarket- ing; Automated Dialing.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 92k90.3)
Telecommunications 372 730
372Telecommunications372IIITelephones372III(A)In General 372k727Constitutional and Statutory Pro-visions372k730k.Validity.Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92Hk2.1 Consumer Protection)For purposes of determining whether provision of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) ban-ning unsolicited advertising via facsimile transmis-sions violated the First Amendment free speechprotection, the government demonstrated a substan-tial interest in preventing advertising cost shiftingand interference with fax machines that such un-wanted advertising placed on the recipients; legis-lative history predating passage of TCPA showedthat Congress was aware of a junk fax problem, thatnumerous consumers had complained that suchfaxes not only used the recipients' paper, but alsoprevented recipients from using their own ma-chines, and that unsolicited fax advertisementscould shift more than one hundred dollars per yearin advertising costs to the recipient.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.1; Communications Act of 1934, §227(b)(1)(C), as amended,47 U.S.C.A. § 227(b)(1)(C).Page 2323 F.3d 649, 28 Communications Reg. (P&F) 1119
(Cite as: 323 F.3d 649)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->