How cited: Charles M. Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City · Go Syfert

Charles M. Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City (1985)

green · 38 citation events across 23 courts. Showing the 24 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198620062026
But See · W.D. Wash. · signal: but see
But see Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379 (10th Cir.1985).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
See Williams v. City of Columbia, 906 F.2d 994, 999 (4th Cir.1990); Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 385 (10th Cir.1985).
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
"Preemption should not ... be presumed absent a clear manifestation of federal intent to exclude state law provisions." Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 383 (10th Cir.1985) (emphasis added).
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
“Preemption should not ... be presumed absent a clear manifestation of federal intent to exclude state law provisions.” Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 383 (10th Cir.1985) (emphasis added).
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
"Preemption should not ... be presumed absent a clear manifestation of federal intent to exclude state law provisions." Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 383 (10th Cir.1985) (emphasis added).
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
“Preemption should not ... be presumed absent a clear manifestation of federal intent to exclude state law provisions.” Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 383 (10th Cir.1985) (emphasis added).
Rule Authority · 4th Cir.
Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 385 (10th Cir.1985). 29 Regarding the second prong, we agree with the district court's determination that there is at least a rational distinction between antennas, which are ordinarily not considered part of a building, and chimneys, spires and other structures, which are integral parts of a building.
Rule Authority · 4th Cir.
Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 385 (10th Cir.1985).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
DISCUSSION A. Federal Preemption “As in all matters of statutory construction, [federal] preemption, which has its roots in the Supremacy Clause, is a matter of congressional intent.” Gushke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 383 (10th Cir.1985).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
DISCUSSION A. Federal Preemption 6 "As in all matters of statutory construction, [federal] preemption, which has its roots in the Supremacy Clause, is a matter of congressional intent." Gushke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 383 (10th Cir.1985).
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691 , 104 S.Ct. 2694, 2700 , 81 L.Ed.2d 580 (1984); Michigan Canners & Freezers Association v. Agricultural Marketing & Bargaining Board, 467 U.S. 461 , 104 S.Ct. 2518, 2523 , 81 L.Ed.2d 399 (1984); Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 383 (10th Cir.1985).
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691 , 104 S.Ct. 2694, 2700 , 81 L.Ed.2d 580 (1984); Michigan Canners & Freezers Association v. Agricultural Marketing & Bargaining Board, 467 U.S. 461 , 104 S.Ct. 2518, 2523 , 81 L.Ed.2d 399 (1984); Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 383 (10th Cir.1985). 10 In this case, it is sufficient to consider whether the FCC's own decision to preempt is Congressionally sanctioned and reasonable. 11 "Federal regulations have no…
Rule Authority · Wyo. · 2 citations in this opinion
Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691 , 104 S.Ct. 2694, 2700 , 81 L.Ed.2d 580 (1984); Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725 , 101 S.Ct. 2114, 2129 , 68 L.Ed.2d 576 (1981); Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 383 (10th Cir.1985).
green Colman v. Faucher (2015)
Rule Authority · D.R.I.
Gough Indus., Inc., 355 F.2d 437, 438 (9th Cir.1966); Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 382 (10th Cir.1985); Mercantile Bank & Trust Co. v. Fid. & Deposit Co., 750 F.2d 838 , 842 (11th Cir. 1985); Greenberg v. Food & Drug Admin., 803 F.2d 1213, 1216 (D.C.Cir.1986); Selva & Sons, Inc. v. Nina Footwear, Inc., 705 F.2d 1316, 1323 (Fed.Cir.1983). .
Rule Authority · W.D. Mich.
In the context of tower height ordinances, courts have uniformly held that no First Amendment claim arises from the denial of a special use permit that is not “based on the content of [the] proposed *800 speech, but [is] an attempt to promote legitimate content-neutral interests.” Williams v. City of Columbia, 906 F.2d 994, 999 (4th Cir.1990); see also Howard v. City of Burlingame, 937 F.2d 1376, 1381 (9th Cir.1991); Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 385 (10th …
Rule Authority · E.D. Tex.
Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 383 (10th Cir.1985).
Rule Authority · N.D. Ohio
Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 384 (10th Cir. 1985); see also Wood Marine Service, Inc., *754 858 F.2d at 1066 (state and local zoning decisions are entitled to great deference in context of commerce clause review).
Rule Authority · D.S.C.
Guschke v. Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 385 (10th Cir. 1985) (citing Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 , 96 S.Ct. 2440 , 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976)).
citing Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 , 96 S.Ct. 2440 , 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976)
Rule Authority · N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
Sica, supra, 127 N.J. at 166 , 603 A. 2d 30 . [15] That no specific rules or regulations have been adopted by the Township of Old Bridge regarding electromagnetic radiation or emissions is not in dispute. [16] Compare, Falter v. Veteran's Admin., 632 F. Supp. 196, 203 (D.N.J. 1986) (fact that pay phones in Veteran's Administration Medical Center were not enclosed in booths and were stationed in hallways where complete privacy was not guaranteed did not unconstitutionally inf…
Rule Authority · N.D. Tex.
Gushke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 383 (10th Cir.1985).
Cited (see also) · N.H. · signal: see also
See also Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 383 (10th Cir. 1985).
Cited (see also) · D. Wyo. · signal: see also
Although "a literal reading [of this clause] evinces a grant of power to Congress, the commerce clause also directly limits the power of the states to discriminate against interstate commerce.” Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437 , -, 112 S.Ct. 789, 800 , 117 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992); Welton v. Missouri, 91 U.S. 275, 279-83 , 23 L.Ed. 347 (1876); see also Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 384 (10th Cir.1985) (citation omitted).
green Still v. Michaels (1992)
Cited (see also) · D. Ariz. · signal: see, e.g.
See e.g., Guschke v. Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379 , 385 & n. 6 (10th Cir.1985) (zoning ordinance regulating height of antenna towers not preempted by FCA); Bieneman v. Chicago, 864 F.2d 463 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1080 , 109 S.Ct. 2099 , 104 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989) (federal law does not preempt all common-law remedies for airport noise and pollution).
Cited (see also) · Bankr. D. Kan. · signal: see also
The Court requires that Congress “manifest its intention clearly.” New York State Dept. of Social Services v. Dublino, 413 U.S. 405, 413 , 93 S.Ct. 2507, 2513 , 37 L.Ed.2d 688 (1973), quoting Schwartz v. Texas, 344 U.S. 199, 202-203 , 73 S.Ct. 232, 235 , 97 L.Ed. 231 (1952); see also Guschke v. City of Oklahoma City, 763 F.2d 379, 383 (10th Cir.1985); Integrity Management Intern. v. Tombs & Sons, Inc., 614 F.Supp. 243, 245 (D.Kan.1985).