green
Positive treatment
2.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 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.) .
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).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
American Farm Lines
v.
Black Ball Freight Service and Interstate Commerce Commission v. Black Ball Freight Service
v.
Black Ball Freight Service and Interstate Commerce Commission v. Black Ball Freight Service
No. 369; No. 382.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 27, 1969.
Joseph A. Califano, Jr., John D. Hawke, Jr., and William L. Peterson, Jr., for appellant in No. 369, and Robert W. Ginnane and Arthur J. Cerra for appellant in No. 382. Peter T. Beardsley and Nelson J. Cooney for Black Ball Freight Service et al., William H. Dempsey, Jr., for Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware et al., James W. Wrape and Robert E. Joyner for United Transports, Inc., and Ed White and James E. Nelson for Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe Railway Co., appellees in both cases. Solicitor General Griswold filed a memorandum for the United States in both cases.
Published
Appeals from D. C. W. D. Wash. Probable jurisdiction noted. Cases consolidated and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.
Reported below: 298 F. Supp. 1006.