47 U.S.C. § 1
SHORT TITLE.
“This Act may be cited as the ‘Secure Equipment Act of 2021’.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1932–2004 · leading case: Hynek v. MCI World Commc'ns, Inc., 202 F. Supp. 2d 831 (N.D. Ind. 2002).
Hynek v. MCI World Commc'ns, Inc., 202 F. Supp. 2d 831 (N.D. Ind. 2002). “See 47 U.S.C. § 1 (Rev. St. § 3964 since repealed).”
Delaware & Hudson Ry. Co. v. Consol. Rail Corp., 654 F. Supp. 1195 (N.D.N.Y. 1987). “The principal thrust of the plaintiffs’ argument was that portions of the law intruded into an area of telecommunications preempted by the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq., and exclusively regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”).”
United Artists Television, Inc. v. Fortnightly Corp., 255 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). “Third Separate Defense: Commercial television broadcasting, like that of the broadcasting stations referred to in the Complaint, is governed by the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 1 , et seq., as implemented by regulations promulgated by the Federal…”
S. Pac. Co. v. Reconstruction Fin. Corp., 161 F.2d 56 (9th Cir. 1947). “* * * Payment by the Fleet Corporation of the commercial rate for messages would necessarily increase the charges upon the public treasury to the same extent, and in the same manner, as would the charge of the commercial rate in respect to the business done for the United States…”
Gouax v. Bovay, 105 F.2d 256 (5th Cir. 1939). “…Nov. 9, 1921, 23 U.&. C.A. § 2. Telegraph lines have long been entitled to build along the post-roads. R. S. § 5263, 47 U.S.C.A. § 1 .”
Cookish et al. v. Rouleau et al., 2004 DNH 045 (D.N.H. 2004). “7 Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 1 5 1 , with all of their annotations.”
Worldcom v. NH Exteriors (D.N.H. 1999). “§§ 1331 and 1337, and the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 1 5 1 , et seq. While the First Circuit has yet to consider whether a suit to collect unpaid charges for telecommunication services under an FCC tariff arises under federal law or an act of Congress regulating…”
W. Union Tel. Co. v. Weaver, 5 F. Supp. 493 (D. Neb. 1932). “We do not think that such a tax is forbidden by the acceptance on the part of the telegraph company of the rights conferred by section 5263 of the Revised Statutes [47 USCA § 1], or by the commerce clause of the constitution.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.