Case Citator › Albert Clatterbuck v. City of Charlottesville

Albert Clatterbuck v. City of Charlottesville

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Fourth Circuit
Citation
708 F.3d 549
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
258 of 258
Citing cases (total)
474
Treatment dates
2016
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Abrogated: all 258 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below. Central Radio Company Inc. v. City of Norfolk held that Reed displaced Clatterbuck's content-neutrality formulation.
More on how this was screened

The other opinions positively applied unaffected Clatterbuck holdings or copied bare history parentheticals reporting Reed's effect on other grounds.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

474 later cases cite Albert Clatterbuck v. City of Charlottesville; 258 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Albert Clatterbuck v. City of Charlottesville?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Fourth Circuit held that Reed abrogated Clatterbuck's content-neutrality formulation, which treated governmental purpose and censorial intent as controlling.

    Central Radio Company Inc. v. City of Norfolk · Fourth Circuit · filed

    We recently observed that this decision conflicted with, and therefore abrogated, our Circuit’s previous formulation for analyzing content neutrality, in which we had held that “[t]he government’s purpose is the controlling consideration.” Cahaly v. LaRosa, 796 F.3d 399, 405 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Clatterbuck v. City of Charlottesville, 708 F.3d 549, 555 (4th Cir. 2013)); see, e.g., Clatterbuck, 708 F.3d at 556 (describing that we applied a “pragmatic rather than formalistic approach to evaluating content neutrality” under which a regulation “is only content-based if it distinguishes content with a censorial intent”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As we explained in Cahaly, the Supreme Court in Reed rejected such an approach.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Albert Clatterbuck v. City of Charlottesville and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace