EXPRESSIONS HAIR DESIGN v. SCHNEIDERMAN

Nos. 13-4533, 13-4537. August Term 2016.

877 F.3d 99 (2017)

EXPRESSIONS HAIR DESIGN, Linda Fiacco, The Brooklyn Farmacy & Soda Fountain, Inc., Peter Freeman, Bunda Starr Corp., Donna Pabst, Five Points Academy, Steve Milles, Patio.com LLC, David Ross, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Eric T. SCHNEIDERMAN, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., in his official capacity as District Attorney of New York County, Eric Gonzalez, in his official capacity as Acting District Attorney of Kings County, Defendants-Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Decided: December 6, 2017.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS: Judith Vale , Senior Assistant Solicitor General, Barbara D. Underwood , Solicitor General, Steven C. Wu , Deputy Solicitor General, New York, NY, for Eric T. Schneiderman , in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York. Kathy Chang Park , for Zachary W. Carter , Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Cyrus R. Vance , in his official capacity as District Attorney of New York County, and Eric Gonzalez , in his official capacity as Acting District Attorney of Kings County. Seth E. Mermin , Thomas Bennigson , Public Good Law Center, Berkeley, CA, for amicus curiae Public Good Law Center, in support of Defendants-Appellants.

FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES: Deepak Gupta , Jonathan E. Taylor , Gupta Wessler PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Richard A. Samp , Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation, in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees. Sharon K. Robertson , Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, New York, NY, for amici curiae United States Public Interest Research Group Education Fund, Inc., Consumer Action, and National Association of Consumer Advocates, in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Before: Wesley, Livingston, and Carney, Circuit Judges.


On remand from the Supreme Court, we are tasked with determining "whether [New York's General Business Law §] 518 is a valid commercial speech regulation under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 100 S.Ct....

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases