How cited: Cluster 684090 · Go Syfert

Cluster 684090 (1994)

green · 38 citation events across 10 courts. Showing the 11 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199420102026
Quote Authority · 9th Cir. · signal: see · 5 citations in this opinion
See C & P, 42 F.3d at 193 (“that a regulation requires some examination of the spéech upon which it has impact does not make the regulation content-based”).
“that a regulation requires some examination of the spéech upon which it has impact does not make the regulation content-based”
Quote Authority · 9th Cir. · signal: see · 4 citations in this opinion
See C & P, 42 F.3d at 193 ("that a regulation requires some examination of the speech upon which it has impact does not make the regulation content-based"). 33 Nor is the "manifest purpose" of the cross-ownership ban "to regulate speech because of the message it conveys." What little legislative history there is for Sec. 533(b) suggests that Congress' concern was to prevent the monopolization of the cable industry by the telephone companies.
"that a regulation requires some examination of the speech upon which it has impact does not make the regulation content-based"
Rule Authority · 4th Cir.
Co. of Va. v. United States, 42 F.3d 181, 193 (4th Cir. 1994), vacated on other grounds, 516 U.S. 415 (1996).
Rule Authority · 4th Cir.
Co. of Va. v. United States, 42 F.3d 181, 193 (4th Cir.1994), vacated on other grounds, 516 U.S. 415 , 116 S.Ct. 1036 , 134 L.Ed.2d 46 (1996).
Rule Authority · E.D. Va. · 2 citations in this opinion
See, e.g., In re Complaint of Syracuse Peace Council against Television Station WTVH, 2 F.C.C.R. 5043, 1987 WL 344763 (1987), aff'd, Syracuse Peace Council v. FCC, 867 F.2d 654 (D.C.Cir.1989); Chesapeake & Potomac Tel., 42 F.3d at 190, vacated on grounds of mootness, 516 U.S. 415 , 116 S.Ct. 1036 , 134 L.Ed.2d 46 (1996); Turner I, 512 U.S. at 637-40 , 114 S.Ct. 2445 .
Rule Authority · E.D. Va.
Co. of Va. v. United States, 42 F.3d 181, 198 (4th Cir.1994), vacated on other grounds, 516 U.S. 415 , 116 S.Ct. 1036, 134 L.Ed.2d 46 (1996)).
Rule Authority · D. Wyo.
The alternatives must be “sufficiently similar to the method foreclosed by the regulation.” Chesapeake & Potomac, 42 F.3d at 203; see also Providence Journal Co. v. City of Newport, 665 F.Supp. 107, 118 (D.R.I.1987) (focus is on channels left open in public forum, not alternatives available on private property) (citations omitted).
Rule Authority · D.S.C.
Co. of Va. v. United States, 42 F.3d 181, 186 (4th Cir.1994) (regulations affecting speech in the form of videoprogramming are not content-based because format and content are distinguishable, and there was no evidence that the regulation’s manifest purpose was to regulate speech because of the message conveyed).
Cited · D.C. Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company v. United States, 42 F.3d 181 , 186-88 (4th Cir.1994).
Cited · D.C. Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company v. United States, 42 F.3d 181, 186-88 (4th Cir.1994).
Cited (see also) · D.D.C. · signal: see also
See United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177 , 103 S.Ct. 1702, 1706 , 75 L.Ed.2d 736 (1983) (differentiating between typical time, place and manner restrictions and regulations that completely banned a particular form of expression); see also Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. of Va. v. United States, 42 F.3d 181, 203 (4th Cir.1994).