• Facets (new session)
• Description
• Metadata
• Settings
  • Rule: ActivityStreamsMapasEquivalentb3sb3sifpdbprdf-labelfacetshttp://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/dbpedia#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/opencyc#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/umbel#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/yago#http://dbpedia.org/schema/property_rules#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/SUMO#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/WordNet#http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ldpoplwebskos-transurn:det:rdf:labelvirtrdf-labelvirtrdf-urlNone
    
  • Inverse Functional Properties: Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects
  • "Same As": Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects (recommended) Apply to subjects, objects and predicates (not recommended on big datasets) Apply to predicates only (special use cases only)

About: Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)

Type: ThingcaseLegal Caseunit of workLegal caseyago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCasesyago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCasesOfTheRehnquistCourtyago:Abstraction100002137yago:Case107308889yago:Event100029378yago:Happening107283608yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntitySupreme Court of the United States case New Facet based on Instances of this Class

Lorillard v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001), was a 2001 case brought by Lorillard Tobacco Company when Massachusetts instituted a ban on tobacco ads and sales of tobacco within 1,000 feet (300 m) of schools and playgrounds. Lorillard argued that this was an infringement on its First Amendment rights and that the regulation was more extensive than necessary. Applying the Central Hudson Test, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Massachusetts' ban on advertising and tobacco sales was overbroad. The Supreme Court also held that the Massachusetts regulation was preempted by federal law.