The expansion of individual liberties by courts interpreting state constitutions more broadly than the Federal Constitution has been a significant trend in recent years. In the area of free speech, the Supreme Court of California recently held that the California Constitution protects speech-related activities in shopping malls, subject to reasonable regulation. The United States Supreme Court found adequate state grounds to uphold that decision in PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, although the Federal Constitution does not extend so far. The author examines the series of cases culminating in PruneYard and discusses its relevance to Florida law
This article contends that the Roberts Court, in the period from 2006 to 2016, arguably became the m...
This article, written for a symposium on Ronald Collins’s and Professor David Hudson’s catalogue of ...
This article examines closely a narrow range of highly factually analogous cases, in which state con...
The expansion of individual liberties by courts interpreting state constitutions more broadly than t...
In Prune Yard Shopping Center v. Robins, the United States Supreme Court held that the California Co...
A group of teenagers use a privately owned shopping centre to gather support for a petition to the U...
Over twenty years after its landmark decision in Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, the California...
Scholars have called the shopping mall the modern replacement for the traditional town square, a cla...
The United States Constitution does not require shopping center owners to allow speech activists to ...
This Note explains that in Fashion Valley Mall, for the first time since the California high court d...
Most Maryland lawyers are vaguely aware that Maryland\u27s Declaration of Rights contains its own gu...
This Article examines closely a narrow range of highly factually analogous cases, in which state con...
This Comment examines the intersection of property rights and free speech rights by tracing how the ...
For decades, constitutional doctrine has held that the Constitution\u27s guarantee of freedom of spe...
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freed...
This article contends that the Roberts Court, in the period from 2006 to 2016, arguably became the m...
This article, written for a symposium on Ronald Collins’s and Professor David Hudson’s catalogue of ...
This article examines closely a narrow range of highly factually analogous cases, in which state con...
The expansion of individual liberties by courts interpreting state constitutions more broadly than t...
In Prune Yard Shopping Center v. Robins, the United States Supreme Court held that the California Co...
A group of teenagers use a privately owned shopping centre to gather support for a petition to the U...
Over twenty years after its landmark decision in Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, the California...
Scholars have called the shopping mall the modern replacement for the traditional town square, a cla...
The United States Constitution does not require shopping center owners to allow speech activists to ...
This Note explains that in Fashion Valley Mall, for the first time since the California high court d...
Most Maryland lawyers are vaguely aware that Maryland\u27s Declaration of Rights contains its own gu...
This Article examines closely a narrow range of highly factually analogous cases, in which state con...
This Comment examines the intersection of property rights and free speech rights by tracing how the ...
For decades, constitutional doctrine has held that the Constitution\u27s guarantee of freedom of spe...
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freed...
This article contends that the Roberts Court, in the period from 2006 to 2016, arguably became the m...
This article, written for a symposium on Ronald Collins’s and Professor David Hudson’s catalogue of ...
This article examines closely a narrow range of highly factually analogous cases, in which state con...