![]() In the decision, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, interpreting the statute to mean that a score above 70 on the WAIS-III precludes a showing of mental retardation, and rejecting Hall's argument that the standard error of measurement should be taken into account. Although there was ample evidence supporting Hall's claim - he had been repeatedly diagnosed with mental retardation in the past - because Hall had scored 73 and 80 on the WAIS-R and 71 on the WAIS-III, the trial court held he could not establish the first element of a mental retardation claim. Virginia, the 2002 case that abolished the death penalty for the "mentally retarded," Hall filed a successive habeas petition and an evidentiary hearing was held. At the time, the judge who sentenced Hall noted that he was "mentally retarded" but found that fact to have "unquantifiable" mitigating weight. After his original sentence was vacated, Hall was resentenced to death in 1991. We hold that in the circumstances presented here, they do not.The defendant in this case, Freddie Lee Hall, was convicted of a capital murder that occurred in 1978 and was sentenced to death. This case asks us to consider whether such Rules violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Rules of the Florida Bar prohibit personal injury lawyers from sending targeted direct-mail solicitations to victims and their relatives for 30 days following an accident or disaster. JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. for Hyatt Legal Services by Andrew Kohn and for the Institute for Access to Legal Services et al. Gilbert, and Steven Trost for the New York State Bar Association by G. Franklin Balotti, Floyd Shapiro, Harold Turner Daniel, Jr., David A. Vladeck.īriefs of amici curiae were filed for the Alabama State Bar Association et al. Hunsaker and for Public Citizen by David C. Stewart.īriefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Institute for Injury Reduction by Larry E. Rufus Pennington III and for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America by Jeffrey Robert White and Larry S. Vial for the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers by C. ![]() *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Dade County Trial Lawyers Association et al. 635.īarry Scott Richard argued the cause for petitioner. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined, post, p. J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, and BREYER, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. Moreover, its duration is limited to a brief 30-day period, and there are many other ways for injured Floridians to learn about the availability of legal representation during that time. Third, the ban's scope is reasonably well Second, the fact that the harms targeted by the ban are quite real is demonstrated by a Bar study, effectively unrebutted by respondents below, that contains extensive statistical and anecdotal data suggesting that the Florida public views direct-mail solicitations in the immediate wake of accidents as an intrusion on privacy that reflects poorly upon the profession. First, the Bar has substantial interest both in protecting the privacy and tranquility of personal injury victims and their loved ones against invasive, unsolicited contact by lawyers and in preventing the erosion of confidence in the profession that such repeated invasions have engendered. (b) The Bar's 30-day ban on targeted direct-mail solicitation withstands Central Hudson scrutiny. 557, a restriction on commercial speech that, like the advertising at issue, does not concern unlawful activity and is not misleading is permissible if the government: (1) asserts a substantial interest in support of its regulation (2) establishes that the restriction directly and materially advances that interest and (3) demonstrates that the regulation is "'narrowly drawn,'" id., at 564-565. Under the "intermediate" scrutiny framework set forth in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. (a) Bates and its progeny establish that lawyer advertising is commercial speech and, as such, is accorded only a limited measure of First Amendment protection. Held: In the circumstances presented here, the Bar Rules do not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on similar grounds. ![]() The District Court entered summary judgment for the plaintiffs, relying on Bates v. Respondent lawyer referral service and an individual Florida attorney filed this action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging, as violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Florida Bar (Bar) Rules prohibiting personal injury lawyers from sending targeted direct-mail solicitations to victims and their relatives for 30 days following an accident or disaster. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |