Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Did you mean FCC?

Your query fcc returned 28 results.

	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990) [Syllabus]
	FCC V. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC. [Syllabus] Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from revoking licenses held by a bankruptcy debtor upon the debtor's failure to make timely payments to the FCC for purchase of the licenses.
	VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. FCC [Syllabus] The Federal Communications Commission can require state utility commissions to set the rates charged for leased telecommunications network elements on a forward-looking basis untied to the network owners' investment, and can require those owners to combine such elements upon the request of a leasing competitor that cannot do the combining itself.
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990) [Syllabus]
	VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. FCC [Syllabus] The Federal Communications Commission can require state utility commissions to set the rates charged for leased telecommunications network elements on a forward-looking basis untied to the network owners' investment, and can require those owners to combine such elements upon the request of a leasing competitor that cannot do the combining itself.
	FCC V. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC. [Syllabus] Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from revoking licenses held by a bankruptcy debtor upon the debtor's failure to make timely payments to the FCC for purchase of the licenses.
	NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSN.,INC. V. GULF POWER CO. [Syllabus] The Pole Attachments Act authorizes the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the rates that utilities charge for attachments providing high-speed Internet access at the same time as cable television and for attachments providing wireless telecommunications.
	AT&T CORP. V. IOWA UTILITIES BD., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) [Syllabus]
	GLOBAL CROSSING TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. V.METROPHONES TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. [Syllabus]
	DENVER AREA EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM, INC,., ET AL. V. F.C.C., 518 U.S. 727 (1996) [Syllabus]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	RENO V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 117 S.CT. 2329, 138 L.ED.2D 874 (1997) [Syllabus]
	NIXON V. MISSOURI MUNICIPAL LEAGUE [Syllabus] Whether 47 U.S.C. 253(a), which provides that "[n]o State ... regulation ... may prohibit ... the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service," preempts a state law prohibiting political subdivisions of the state from offering telecommunications service to the public?
	GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING ASSN., INC.V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	F.C.C. V. BEACH COMMUNICATIONS, 508 U.S. 307 (1993). [Syllabus]
	VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. LAW OFFICESOF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP [Syllabus] 1. Whether allegations of inadequacies in a monopolist's affirmative assistance to its rivals, including resellers—as newly provided by incumbent local telephone companies under the Telecommunications Act of 1996—state a claim for unlawful unilateral predatory conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act 2. Whether antitrust and Communications Act standing extends to indirect purchasers, I.e., the customers of the defendant's customer, asserting injuries wholly derivative of the direct customer's injury, even when invoking only the direct customer's legal rights.
	AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC., 524 U.S. 214 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENTGROUP, INC. [Syllabus] 1. Whether Section 505 violates the First Amendment. 2. Whether the three-judge district court was divested of jurisdiction to dispose of the government's post- judgment motions under Rule 59 (e) and 60 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the government's filing of a notice of appeal while those motion were pending.
	TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. V. F.C.C., 520 U.S. 180 (1997) [Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Syllabus] Provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 prohibiting "any visual depiction" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," as well as any sexually explicit image "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts a minor engaging in such conduct, are overbroad and therefore violate the First Amendment.
	TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA V.PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO. [Syllabus]
	HURLEY V. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN & BISEXUAL GROUP OF BOSTON, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) [Syllabus]
	ERIE V. PAP’S A. M. [Syllabus] Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States?
	TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC.. V. F.C.C. , 512 U.S. 622 (1994) [Syllabus]
	ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS V. PENA, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). [Syllabus]
	PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 [Syllabus]
	ELDRED V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus] The Copyright Term Extension Act, which enlarges the duration of existing and future copyrights by 20 years, does not exceed Congress' power under the Constitution's Copyright Clause and does not violate the First Amendment.
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N V. AKINS, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) [Syllabus]
	VERIZON MD. INC. V. PUBLIC SERV. COMM’N OF MD. [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §1331 provides a basis for federal-court jurisdiction over a telecommunication carrier's claim that a state public utility commission's order requiring reciprocal compensation for telephone calls to Internet service providers is pre-empted by federal law; the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, permits the suit to go forward against the state commissioners in their official capacities.
	UNITED STATES V. BOOKER [Syllabus]