About: Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn. Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FOhralik_v._Ohio_State_Bar_Assn.

Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 US 447 (1978), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that in-person solicitation of clients by lawyers was not protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Attributes	Values
rdfs:label	Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn. (en)
rdfs:comment	Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 US 447 (1978), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that in-person solicitation of clients by lawyers was not protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (en)
dcterms:subject	1978 in Ohio United States Supreme Court cases Freedom of expression in the United States 1978 in United States case law Practice of law United States Free Speech Clause case law Legal ethics Freedom of expression United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court Legal history of Ohio United States First Amendment case law
Wikipage page ID	68044489 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1033431272 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	Ambulance chasing Professional ethics Bates v. State Bar of Arizona Bigelow v. Virginia United States Department of Justice Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council Incorporation of the Bill of Rights 1978 in Ohio United States Supreme Court cases Freedom of expression in the United States Freedom of speech Geauga County, Ohio Montville, Ohio Oral contract Lewis F. Powell Jr. Commercial speech 1978 in United States case law Practice of law Thurgood Marshall William J. Brennan Jr. William Rehnquist United States Free Speech Clause case law First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution First Amendment to the United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Legal profession Legal ethics Freedom of expression United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court Lawyer Legal history of Ohio Supreme Court of Ohio Supreme Court of the United States United States First Amendment case law Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations In re Primus Compelling interest Ohio State Bar Association Free speech
Link from a Wikipage to an external page	https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1650
sameAs	Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn. Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Blockquote dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_Case
docket	76 (xsd:integer)
JoinMajority	Stewart, White, Burger, Blackmun, Stevens (en)
LawsApplied	First Amendment to the United States Constitution
OralArgument	https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/76-1650
ParallelCitations	172800.0 (second)
USPage	447 (xsd:integer)
USVol	436 (xsd:integer)
ArgueDate	0001-01-16 (xsd:gMonthDay)
ArgueYear	1978 (xsd:integer)
DecideDate	0001-05-30 (xsd:gMonthDay)
DecideYear	1978 (xsd:integer)
fullname	Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn. (en)
Holding	Professional ethics rules for the legal profession that ban in-person solicitation of clients do not violate the right to free speech as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. (en)
Litigants	Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn. (en)
majority	Powell (en)
source	Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn, 436 US 447 at 457 (en) Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 US 447 at 476 (en)
text	. . .these concededly legitimate interests might well be served by more specific and less restrictive rules than a total ban on pecuniary solicitation. For example, the Justice Department has suggested that the disciplinary rules be reworded "so as to permit all solicitation and advertising except the kinds that are false, misleading, undignified, or champertous." (en) The aim and effect of in-person solicitation may be to provide a one-sided presentation and to encourage speedy and perhaps uninformed decisionmaking; there is no opportunity for intervention or counter-education by agencies of the Bar, supervisory authorities, or persons close to the solicited individual. The admonition that "the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones" is of little value when the circumstances provide no opportunity for any remedy at all. (en)
has abstract	Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 US 447 (1978), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that in-person solicitation of clients by lawyers was not protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (en)
Concurrence	Marshall (en) Rehnquist (en)
NotParticipating	Brennan (en)
SCOTUS	1978 (xsd:integer)
prov:wasDerivedFrom	wikipedia-en:Ohralik_v._Ohio_State_Bar_Assn.?oldid=1033431272&ns=0
page length (characters) of wiki page	10228 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf	wikipedia-en:Ohralik_v._Ohio_State_Bar_Assn.
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of	List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment Ohralik v Ohio State Bar Assn. Attorney misconduct Freedom of speech in the United States
is Wikipage redirect of	Ohralik v Ohio State Bar Assn.
is foaf:primaryTopic of	wikipedia-en:Ohralik_v._Ohio_State_Bar_Assn.

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 59 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software