How cited: Daniels Cablevision, Inc. v. United States · Go Syfert

Daniels Cablevision, Inc. v. United States (1993)

green · 69 citation events across 8 courts. Showing the 13 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
All Green 13
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199420102026
Sort: By significance · Most recent
green Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1996)
Rule Authority · D.C. Cir. · 5 citations in this opinion
A single-judge district court proceeded to consider the remaining issues, which are those that now concern us, and concluded that three of the challenged provisions were unconstitutional (the DBS set-aside obligation, the premium channel preview notice requirement, and the subscriber limitation), Daniels Cablevision, Inc. v. United States, 835 F.Supp. 1, 8-10 (D.D.C.1993), but upheld the validity of the rest.
green Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. Federal Communications Commission (1996)
Rule Authority · D.C. Cir. · 4 citations in this opinion
A single-judge district court proceeded to consider the remaining issues, which are those that now concern us, and concluded that three of the challenged provisions were unconstitutional (the DBS set-aside obligation, the premium channel preview notice requirement, and the subscriber limitation), Daniels Cablevision, Inc. v. United States, 835 F.Supp. 1, 8-10 (D.D.C.1993), [ 320 U.S.App.D.C. 301 ] but upheld the validity of the rest.
green 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2261, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3737 Jones Intercable of San Diego, Inc. v. City of Chu… (1996)
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Congress found that, prior to passage of section 555a(a), municipalities were facing unexpected and "potentially crippling" civil damage liability claims in relation to their regulation of cable operators. 5 See Daniels Cablevision, Inc. v. United States, 835 F.Supp. 1, 11-12 (D.D.C.1993).
green Jones Intercable of San Diego, Inc. v. City of Chula Vista (1996)
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Congress found that, prior to passage of section 555a(a), municipalities were facing unexpected and “potentially crippling” civil damage liability claims in relation to their regulation of cable operators. 5 See Daniels Cablevision, Inc. v. United States, 835 F.Supp. 1, 11-12 (D.D.C.1993).
green 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7810, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,438 Jones Intercable of San Diego, Inc. v. City of C… (1995)
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Congress found that, prior to passage of section 555a(a), municipalities were facing unexpected and "potentially crippling" civil damage liability claims in relation to their regulation of cable operators. 5 See Daniels Cablevision, Inc. v. United States, 835 F.Supp. 1, 11-12 (D.D.C.1993).
green Jones Intercable of San Diego, Inc. v. City of Chula Vista (1995)
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Congress found that, prior to passage of section 555a(a), municipalities were facing unexpected and “potentially crippling” civil damage liability claims in relation to their regulation of cable operators. 5 See Daniels Cablevision, Inc. v. United States, 835 F.Supp. 1, 11-12 (D.D.C.1993).
green Caprotti v. Town of Woodstock (1999)
Rule Authority · NY · 2 citations in this opinion
Elimination of that exposure is thus designed to preserve the municipal franchising and regulations scheme envisioned by the 1984 Act” (Daniels Cablevision v United States, 835 F Supp 1,11-12 [D DC; emphasis supplied]).
green CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America
Rule Authority · 2 citations in this opinion
We therefore held intermediate scrutiny to be the appropriate standard to apply, noting that the provision is content-neutral on its face because it "regulat[es] cable programmers and operators on the basis of the `economics of ownership,' a characteristic unrelated to the content of speech." Id. at 977 (quoting Daniels Cablevision, Inc. v. United States, 835 F.Supp. 1, 7 (D.D.C.1993)).
green City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLC (2015)
Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.
Section 555a(a) Section 555a(a) provides, in pertinent part, “(a) Suits for damages prohibited [¶] In any court proceeding pending on or initiated after October 5, 1992, involving any claim against a franchising authority or other governmental entity, or any official, member, employee, or agent of such authority or entity, arising from the regulation of cable service or from a decision of approval or disapproval with respect to a grant, renewal, transfer, or amendment of a f…
green City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLC (2014)
Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.
In any court proceeding pending on or initiated after the date of enactment of this section [Oct. 5, 1992] involving any claim against a franchising authority or other governmental entity, or any official, member, employee, or agent of such authority or entity, arising from the regulation of cable service or from a decision of approval or disapproval with respect to a grant, renewal, transfer, or amendment of a franchise, any relief, to the extent such relief is required by …
green Goldstein v. Time Warner New York City Cable Group (1998)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
As a general matter, the Cable Act is “landmark legislation” that “subjects the *432 cable television industry to extensive and unprecedented federal regulation.” Daniels Cablevision, Inc. v. United States, 835 F.Supp. 1, 2-3 (D.D.C.1993).
green Comcast Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission (2009)
Cited · D.C. Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Daniels Cablevision, Inc. v. United States, 835 F.Supp. 1 (D.D.C.1993), rev'd in part sub nom.
green Liberty Cable Co., Inc. v. City of New York (1995)
Cited · S.D.N.Y. · signal: see
See Daniels Cablevision v. United States, 835 F.Supp. 1 , 3 n. 1 (D.C.Cir.1993), appeal docketed sub nom.