Gresham et al v. Rutledge
Plaintiff:
Victor Gresham and Conquest Communications Group LLC
Defendant:
Leslie Rutledge
Case Number:
4:2016cv00241
Filed:
May 4, 2016
Court:
Arkansas Eastern District Court
Office:
Little Rock Office
County:
Out of State
Presiding Judge:
J. Leon Holmes
Nature of Suit:
Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action:
28:1343
Jury Demanded By:
Defendant
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Date Filed | # | Document Text |
|---|---|---|
| July 27, 2016 | 27 |
OPINION AND ORDER: According to the United States Supreme Court, a state-imposed, content-based restriction on speech can be enforced only if it passes the strict scrutiny test, and it is a rare case that survives strict scrutiny. The statute at issu e here imposes a content-based restriction on speech; it is not one of the rare cases that survives strict scrutiny. The state has failed to prove that the statute at issue advances a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that i nterest. A decree will be entered separately enjoining Leslie Rutledge, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Arkansas, from enforcing Ark. Code Ann. § 5-63-204(a)(1) insofar as that provision applies to telephone calls made in connection with a political campaign. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 7/27/2016. (ljb)
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arkansas Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
