Citation network
Capital Cities Cable, Inc. Vs. Crisp
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 18, 1984
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 691 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. CrispSearch
-
U.S. 691 (1984) Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. CrispSearch
-
block out all such advertising carried on national network programming. See Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. HeubleinSearch
-
First Amendment claim, the District Court applied the test set forth in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. PublicSearch
-
by the First Amendment, the state ban was a valid restriction on commercial speech. Oklahoma Telecasters Assn. v. CrispSearch
-
Although we do not ordinarily consider questions not specifically passed upon by the lower court, see California v. TaylorSearch
-
rule is not inflexible, particularly in cases coming, as this one does, from the federal courts. See, e.g., Youakim v. MillerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. UniversitySearch
-
As in California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
first, when Congress, in enacting a federal statute, has expressed a clear intent to preempt state law, Jones v. RathSearch
-
federal law, Rice v. SantaSearch
-
and, finally, when compliance with both state and federal law is impossible, Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSearch
-
U. S. 52 , 312 U. S. 67 (1941). See also Michigan Canners & Freezers Assn. v. AgriculturalSearch
-
Id. at 458 U. S. 153 -154, quoting United States v. ShimerSearch
-
to the FCC plainly comprises authority to regulate the signals carried by cable television systems. In United States v. SouthwesternSearch
-
FCC v. MidwestSearch
-
Video Corp., 440 U. S. 689 , 440 U. S. 706 (1979). Accord, United States v. MidwestSearch
-
that are within the agency's domain, United States v. ShimerSearch
-
confirmed the FCC's general authority under the Communications Act to regulate cable television systems. United States v. SouthwesternSearch
-
F.C.C.2d 143, on reconsideration, 36 F.C.C.2d 326 (1972), aff'd sub nom. American Civil Liberties Union v. FCCSearch
-
See CATV Syndicated Program Exclusivity Rules, 79 F.C.C.2d 663 (1980), aff'd sub nom. Malrite T.V. of New York v. FCCSearch
-
F.2d 1140 (CA2 1981), cert. denied sub nom. National Football League v. FCCSearch
-
Malrite T.V. of New York v. FCCSearch
-
of the federal regulatory scheme. Hines v. DavidowitzSearch
-
Farmers Union v. WDAYSearch
-
Ray v. AtlanticSearch
-
Bethlehem Steel Co. v. NewSearch
-
within the meaning of the 1909 Copyright Act. Teleprompter Corp. v. ColumbiaSearch
-
Fortnightly Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Sony Corp. v. UniversalSearch
-
Amendment rescues the statute from preemption. A similar claim was advanced in California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
Twenty-first Amendment to regulate the importation and use of intoxicating liquor within their borders. Ziffrin, Inc. v. ReevesSearch
-
does not license the States to ignore their obligations under other provisions of the Constitution. See, e.g., Larkin v. Grendel'sSearch
-
Department of Revenue v. JamesSearch
-
U. S. 190 , 429 U. S. 206 (1976). Thus, as the Court explained in Hostetter v. IdlewildSearch
-
State Board of Equalization v. Young'sSearch
-
Clause to regulate even interstate commerce in liquor. Ibid. See also California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
United States v. FrankfortSearch
-
broadcasters in a case that was consolidated for purposes of appeal with petitioners' case. Oklahoma Telecasters Assn. v. CrispSearch
-
Relying upon the Court's decision in FCC v. MidwestSearch
-
For that reason our decision in Head v. NewSearch
-
Eastern Microwave, Inc. v. DoubledaySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial