Cases from cite.case.law:

RUSSELL, v. LUNDERGAN- GRIMES,, 784 F.3d 1037 (6th Cir. 2015)

. . . Jack Conway, and various other state and local officials, alleging that Kentucky Revised Statute § 117.235 . . . Ky.Rev.Stat. § 117.235(3). . . . Id. § 117.235(5). . . . The trial court invalidated § 117.235(3) for failing to satisfy strict scrutiny. . . . Finally, we must decide whether to invalidate § 117.235(3) facially as well as as-applied. . . .

RUSSELL, v. LUNDERGAN- GRIMES,, 769 F.3d 919 (6th Cir. 2014)

. . . appeal of the district court’s order declaring unconstitutional a Kentucky electioneering statute, KRS § 117.235 . . . KRS § 117.235(3). . . . raises both a facial and an as-applied challenge to § 177.235(3), and permitting Kentucky to enforce § 117.235 . . . 2014, order granting a permanent injunction to the extent that it prohibits Kentucky from enforcing § 117.235 . . . We do not stay the district court’s order to the extent that it prohibits Kentucky from enforcing § 117.235 . . .

RUSSELL, v. GRIMES,, 53 F. Supp. 3d 1004 (E.D. Ky. 2014)

. . . . § 117.235(3), alleging that it violates their First Amendment free speech rights. II. . . . The deputies indicated that they were enforcing Kentucky Revised Statutes section 117.235(3) when they . . . The deputies indicated that they were enforcing Kentucky Revised Statutes section 117.235(3) when they . . . The electioneering ban in Kentucky Revised Statutes section 117.235(3) is unambiguous and encompasses . . . Defendants thus have ■ not met their burden to show that Kentucky Revised Statutes section 117.235(3) . . .

ANDERSON v. C. WILSON, KY, a, 357 F. Supp. 2d 991 (E.D. Ky. 2005)

. . . The Sixth Circuit agreed with Plaintiffs that the following statutes were unconstitutional: (1) KRS § 117.235 . . .

ANDERSON, v. E. SPEAR,, 356 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2004)

. . . nine separate Kentucky statutes regulating the conduct of elections and campaign finance: (1) KRS § 117.235 . . . Whether Kentucey’s restriction on electioneering WITHIN 500 FEET OF POLLING places (KRS § 117.235) is . . . KRS § 117.235(3). . . . KRS § 117.235(3) (emphasis added). . . . KRS § 117.235(3). Counsel for the Kentucky State Board of Elections informed Mr. . . .

ANDERSON, v. E. SPEAR,, 189 F. Supp. 2d 644 (E.D. Ky. 2002)

. . . Specifically, plaintiffs challenge the following provisions: (1) KRS § 117.235(3) (prohibiting “electioneering . . . Defendants— Counts I and II Counts I and II of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment address KRS § 117.235 . . . Plaintiffs’ challenge to KRS § 117.235 is two-fold: plaintiffs allege that this statute is over-broad . . . The constitutionality of KRS § 117.235 would seem to turn on the answer to this question. . . . The Court finds as a matter of law that the definition of “electioneering” contained in KRS § 117.235 . . .

HOGGE v. SS YORKMAR, CALMAR STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION v. C. BAKER CALMAR STEAMSHIP CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v. CALMAR STEAMSHIP CORPORATION BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION v. C. BAKER D. BRAZIL, v. CALMAR STEAMSHIP CORPORATION CALMAR STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION v. P. BAKER, 434 F. Supp. 715 (D. Md. 1977)

. . . . § 117.235(a), or if it failed to abide by the prevalent customs in the Canal regarding the use of channel . . . was guilty of statutory fault in that it failed to give the whistle signals required by 33 C.F.R. § 117.235 . . .