Case Status

3 results

NIKE, INC., ET AL. vs. KASKY, MARC

    Order dated: 01/10/03
    Docket number: 02-575
    Action:
        The motion of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of Council of Public Relations Firms, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of ExxonMobil, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of Center for Advancement of Capitalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The motion of Civil Justice Association of California for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The motion of Thirty-Two Leading Newspapers, Magazines, etc., et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of Washington Legal Foundation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The motion of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The motion of Center for Individual Freedom for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.

NIKE, INC., ET AL. vs. KASKY, MARC

    Order dated: 03/24/03
    Docket number: 02-575
    Action:
        The motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendix is granted.

NIKE, INC., ET AL. vs. KASKY, MARC

    Order dated: 04/07/03
    Docket number: 02-575
    Action:
        The motions of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument are granted.

A description of the questions presented by the case has been prepared:

1. When a corporation participates in a public debate writing letters to newspaper editors and to educators and publishing communications addressed to the general public on issues of great political, social, and economic importance- may it be subjected to liability for factual inaccuracies on the theory that its statements are commercial speech because they might affect consumers' opinions about the business as a good corporate citizen and thereby affect their purchasing decisions? 2. Even assuming the California Supreme Court properly characterized such statements as Commercial speech, does the First Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, permit subjecting speakers to the legal regime approved by that court in the decision below?

An opinion has been handed down: