47 U.S.C. § 555

Judicial proceedings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Actions to review determinations by franchising authoritiesAny cable operator adversely affected by any final determination made by a franchising authority under section 541(a)(1), 545 or 546 of this title may commence an action within 120 days after receiving notice of such determination, which may be brought in—(1) the district court of the United States for any judicial district in which the cable system is located; or(2) in any State court of general jurisdiction having jurisdiction over the parties.(b) Available relief

The court may award any appropriate relief consistent with the provisions of the relevant section described in subsection (a) and with the provisions of subsection (a).

(c) Review of constitutionality of sections 534 and 535(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any civil action challenging the constitutionality of section 534 or 535 of this title or any provision thereof shall be heard by a district court of three judges convened pursuant to the provisions of section 2284 of title 28.(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order of the court of three judges in an action under paragraph (1) holding section 534 or 535 of this title or any provision thereof unconstitutional shall be reviewable as a matter of right by direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Any such appeal shall be filed not more than 20 days after entry of such judgment, decree, or order.(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title VI, § 635, as added Pub. L. 98–549, § 2, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2800; amended Pub. L. 102–385, §§ 7(a)(2), 23, 24(b), Oct. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 1483, 1500, 1501.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1992—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–385, § 7(a)(2), inserted “541(a)(1),” after “section”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–385, § 24(b), inserted “and with the provisions of subsection (a)” after “subsection (a)”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 102–385, § 23, added subsec. (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–385 effective 60 days after Oct. 5, 1992, see section 28 of Pub. L. 102–385, set out as a note under section 325 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective 60 days after Oct. 30, 1984, except where otherwise expressly provided, see section 9(a) of Pub. L. 98–549, set out as a note under section 521 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 34 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2022 · leading case: Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 512 U.S. 622 (1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 512 U.S. 622 (1994). · cites it 4× “1992 Cable Act § 23, 47 U. S. C. § 555 (c)(1) (1988 ed., Supp.”

Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 520 U.S. 180 (1997). · cites it 2× “See 47 U. S. C. § 555 (c)(1); 28 U. S. C. § 1253 .”

NEPSK, Inc. v. Town of Houlton, 283 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002). “47 U.S.C. § 555 (a). As far as we can tell, the question whether § 541(a)(1) creates a cause of action for a cable provider that lost out in a competitive bidding process for a single franchise is one of first impression.”

Sherman Gottlieb v. Carnival Corp., No. 05-2733 Cv, 436 F.3d 335 (2d Cir. 2006). “§ 553 (c)(1) (authorizing suit in federal court or any other court of competent jurisdiction for unauthorized cable reception); 47 U.S.C. § 555 (a) (authorizing suit in federal court or state court of general jurisdiction to review actions by franchising authority); 47 U.”

Playboy Enter., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Puerto Rico, 906 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1990). “47 U.S.C. § 555 . The Cable Act grants franchising authorities the power to enforce consumer protection provisions included in franchise agreements, and has detailed procedures for enforcing the Act's equal employment requirements.”

Int'l Sci. & Tech. Inst., Inc. v. Inacom Commc'ns, Inc., 106 F.3d 1146 (4th Cir. 1997). “§ 553 (e)(1) (authorizing suit in federal court or any other court of competent jurisdiction for unauthorized cable reception); 47 U.S.C. § 555 (a) (authorizing suit in federal court or state court of general jurisdiction to review actions by franchising authority); 47 U.”

Council v. Dep't of Pub. Util. Control, 788 A.2d 29 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 2× “The second provision is 47 U.S.C. § 555 (a), 13 which provides in part, with regal’d to an action to review determinations by franchising authorities: “Any cable operator adversely affected by any final determination made by a franchising authority under section 541 (a) (1), 545…”

All. for Cmty. Media v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 529 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2008). “See 47 U.S.C. § 555 (a)(1),(2) (“Any cable operator adversely affected by any final determination made by a franchising authority under section 541(a)(1) .”

I-Star Commc'ns Corp. v. City of East Cleveland, 885 F. Supp. 1035 (N.D. Ohio 1995). · cites it 4× “§ 1983 and 47 U.S.C. § 555 (a) against the City of East Cleveland and city council members Harold Miller, Isaac Jones, Gladys Walcott, and Jeremiah Johnson (the “council members”).”

Turner Broad. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 910 F. Supp. 734 (D.D.C. 1995). · cites it 5× “An appropriate forum for such determinations would be the United States Court of Federal Claims.”

Chair King, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees v. Houston Cellular Corp., Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, Karen Laake, Etc., 131 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 1997). “§ 553 (c)(1) (authorizing suit in federal court or any other court of competent jurisdiction for unauthorized cable reception); 47 U.S.C. § 555 (a) (authorizing suit in federal or state court of general jurisdiction to review actions by franchising authority); 47 U.”

Erienet, Inc. Sandra MacKenzie John Knauer Frank Mezler, Jr. v. Velocity Net, Inc. Thomas Dylewski Chad Ferenack, 156 F.3d 513 (3rd Cir. 1998). “§ 553 (c)(1) (authorizing suit for unauthorized cable reception in United States district court or any other court of competent jurisdiction); 47 U.S.C. § 555 (a) (authorizing review of decisions of a franchising authority in United States district court or any state court of…”

Show all 34 citing cases →

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.