green
Positive treatment
3.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1970 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1970
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Computer & Communications Industry Ass'n v. Federal Communications Commission
National Ass’n of Theatre Owners v. FCC, 420 F.2d 194, 199 (D.C.Cir.1969) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 922 , 90 S.Ct. 914 , 25 L.Ed.2d 102 (1970); see General Telephone Co. of California v. FCC, 413 F.2d 390, 398 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 888 , 90 S.Ct. 173 , 24 L.Ed.2d 163 (1969). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Computer and Communications Industry Association v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, North American Telephone Association, Utilities Telecommunications Council, Tymnet, Inc., Continental Telephone Corporation, Xerox Corporation, Hazeltine Corporation, Alarm Industry Telecommunications Committee of the National Burglar & Fire Alarm Association, Rca Global Communications, Inc., Satellite Business Systems, Motorola, Inc., U.S. Telephone & Telegraph Corporation, American Petroleum Institute, Citicorp, Central Telephone & Utilities Corporation, Comsat General Corporation, American Newspaper Publishers Association, Gte Service Corporation, Sperry Univac Division of Sperry Corporation, Communications Satellite Corporation, International Business MacHines Corporation, American Telephone & Telegraph Company, Computer & Business Equipment Manufacturers Association, Control Data Corporation, United Telephone System, Inc., United Computing Systems, Inc., Southern Pacific Communications Company, Western Union Telegraph Company, Aeronautical Radio, Inc., Isa Communications Services, Inc., Independent Data Communications Manufacturers Association, Inc., Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc., Bunker Ramo Corporation, Gte Telenet Communications Corporation, Municipality of Anchorage D/B/A Anchorage Telephone Utility, Louisiana Public Service Commission, Intervenors. The People of the State of California and the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, International Business MacHines Corp., Intervenors. Independent Data Communications Manufacturers Association, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, International Business MacHines Corp., Intervenors. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, International Business MacHines Corp., Intervenors. American Newspaper Publishers Association v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, International Business MacHines Corp., Intervenors. Motorola, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, International Business MacHines Corp., Intervenors
Sec. 152 (1976) 81 See Computer II Final Decision, 77 F.C.C.2d at 466-70 82 Id. at 441, 444-46 83 General Telephone Co. of the Southwest v. United States, 449 F.2d 846, 853 (5th Cir.1971) 84 National Ass'n of Theatre Owners v. FCC, 420 F.2d 194, 199 (D.C.Cir.1969) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 922 , 90 S.Ct. 914 , 25 L.Ed.2d 102 (1970); see General Telephone Co. of California v. FCC, 413 F.2d 390, 398 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 888 , 90 S.Ct. 173 , 24 L.Ed.2d 163 (1969) 85 FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild, 450 U.S. 582, 596 , 101 S.Ct. 1266, 1275 , 67 L.Ed.2d 521 (1981) 86 5 U.…
discussed
Cited "see"
Mt. Mansfield Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
See General Telephone Co. of Calif, v. Federal Communications Commission, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 116 , 413 F.2d 390, 402 , cert. denied, 396 U.S. 888 , 90 S.Ct. 173 , 24 L.Ed.2d 163 (1969) : “The Commission’s regulatory and enforcement powers should not be artificially fragmented or compartmentalized when the result would be to frustrate a comprehensive, pervasive regulatory scheme.” (Footnote omitted.) .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Central Florida Enterprises, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Cowles Broadcasting, Inc., Intervenor
We contemplate that such instances of equipoise will be exceedingly rare if the Commission seriously undertakes a full comparison 1 FCC Petition for Rehearing at 9 (citing Greater Boston, 143 U.S.App.D.C. at 396 , 444 F.2d at 854 ) 2 1965 Policy Statement on Comparative Broadcast Hearings, 1 F.C.C.2d 393 (1965) 3 See Central Florida Enterprises, Inc., 194 U.S.App.D.C. --- at ---, 598 F.2d 37 at 42 (1978); Seven (7) League Productions, Inc., 1 F.C.C.2d 1597 , 1598 (1965); See also Belo Broadcasting Corp., 47 F.C.C.2d 540 , 543-44 (1974) 4 62 F.C.C.2d at 958 (emphasis original) 5 194 U.S.App.D.C…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pasadena Broadcasting Company v. Federal Communications Commission, Western Broadcasting Corporation and Voice in Pasadena, Inc., Intervenors. Goodson-Todman Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Western Broadcasting Corporation and Voice in Pasadena, Inc., Intervenors. Charles W. Jobbins v. Federal Communications Commission, Western Broadcasting Corporation and Voice in Pasadena, Inc., Intervenors. Voice in Pasadena, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Western Broadcasting Corporation, Intervenor. Pacific Fine Music, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Western Broadcasting Corporation and Voice in Pasadena, Inc., Intervenors. Orange Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Western Broadcasting Corporation, Intervenor
See, e. g., Star Television, Inc. v. FCC, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 71 , 74, 416 F.2d 1086 , 1089, cert. denied, 396 U.S. 888 , 90 S.Ct. 171 , 24 L.Ed.2d 163 (1969); Anthony, supra note 38, 24 Stan.L.Rev. at 27-33.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
National Association Of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission
See, e. g., General Telephone Co. v. FCC, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 116 , 124, 413 F.2d 390 , 398, cert. denied, 396 U.S. 888 , 90 S.Ct. 173 , 24 L.Ed.2d 163 (1969).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission
See, e. g., General Telephone Co. v. FCC, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 116 , 124, 413 F.2d 390 , 398, cert. denied, 396 U.S. 888 , 90 S.Ct. 173 , 24 L.Ed.2d 163 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fidelity Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Rko General, Inc., Intervenor
See, e. g., Star Television, Inc. v. FCC, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 71 , 416 F.2d 1086 , cert. denied, 396 U.S. 888 , 90 S.Ct. 171 , 24 L.Ed.2d 163 (1969) aff’g Flower City Television Corp., 9 F.C.C.2d 249 , recon. denied, 10 F.C.C.2d 718 (1967); Community Broadcasting Corp. v. FCC, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 230 , 363 F.2d 717 (1966); Tennessee Television, Inc. v. FCC, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 316 , 262 F.2d 28 (1958); Pinellas Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 236 , 230 F.2d 204 , cert. denied, 350 U.S. 1007 , 76 S.Ct. 650 , 100 L.Ed. 869 (1956); W.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Federal Broadcasting System, Inc.
v.
Federal Communications Commission and Star Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
v.
Federal Communications Commission and Star Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
No. 285; No. 532.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 27, 1969.
Edward J. Grenier, Jr., for petitioner in No. 285, and Benedict P. Cottone and John C. Eldridge for petitioners in No. 532. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General McLaren, Howard E. Shapiro, Henry Getter, John H. Conlin, and Jjenore G. Ehrig for respondent Federal Communications Commission in both cases, and Thomas N. Dowd, Harold David Cohen, and J. Laurent Scharff for respondent Flower City Television Corp., in No. 532.
Consideration, Petitions, Took.
Published
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.Reported below: 135 U. S. App. D. C. 71, 416 F. 2d 1086.