Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): not find that Plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of any material issue of fact with regard to Defendants’ safety reasons for the denial of Mr. Satawa’s permit application such that the safety reasons given by Mr. Hoepfner should be discredited. “As a general matter, it is clear that a State’s interest in protecting the ‘safety and convenience’ of persons using a public forum is a valid governmental objective.” Heffron v. Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 650, 101 S.Ct. 2559, 2565, 69 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981); Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of W.N.Y., 519 U.S. 357, 376, 117 S.Ct. 855, 866, 137 L.Ed.2d 1 (1997); Long Beach Area Peace Network v. City of Long Beach, 574 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1569, 176 L.Ed.2d 110 (2010) (<HOLDING>). As this Court previously observed, “even 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a state has a substantial interest in regulating the practice of law within the state (B) recognizing the public interest exception (C) holding pennsylvania statute regulating subrogation is a law regulating insurance (D) recognizing a somewhat greater governmental interest in regulating expressive activity on city streets because of the public safety concerns raised by vehicular traffic (E) recognizing governmental interest in rehabilitation
Output (English): holding pennsylvania statute regulating subrogation is a law regulating insurance