Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Fcc Vs. Beach Communications, Inc.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 01, 1993

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

40 entries 6 linked 34 unlinked
Show
  1. Bowen Vs. Gilliard US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1987
  2. Dandridge Vs. Williams US Supreme Court · Apr 06, 1970
    Distinguished
  3. Vance Vs. Bradley US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1979
  4. Metropolis theatre Co. Vs. Chicago US Supreme Court · Apr 07, 1913
  5. Sullivan Vs. Stroop US Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1990
  6. Hodel Vs. Indiana US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1981
  7. FCC v. Beach
    Search
  8. Inc. - 508 U.S. 307 (1993) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Federal Communications Commission Et Al. V. Beach
    Search
  9. any reasonably conceivable state of facts could provide a rational basis for the classification. See, e. g., Sullivan v. Stroop
    Search
  10. is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification. See Sullivan v. Stroop
    Search
  11. United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz
    Search
  12. a classification in a statute such as the Cable Act comes to us bearing a strong presumption of validity, see Lyng v. Automobile
    Search
  13. no action to amend or defend the provision in later passing the 1992 Act. Brief for Respondents 8-12. Cf. Lorillard v. Pons
    Search
  14. Lehnhausen v. Lake
    Search
  15. Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U. S. 356 , 364 (1973) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Hodel v. Indiana
    Search
  16. reason for the challenged distinction actually motivated the legislature. United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz
    Search
  17. supra, at 179. See Flemming v. Nestor
    Search
  18. U. S. App. D. C., at 389, 959 F. 2d, at 987, has no significance in rational-basis analysis. See Nordlinger v. Hahn
    Search
  19. to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data. See Vance v. Bradley
    Search
  20. supra, at 111. See also Minnesota v. Clover
    Search
  21. Lehnhausen, supra, at 365 (quoting Carmichael v. Southern
    Search
  22. the legislature must be allowed leeway to approach a perceived problem incrementally. See, e. g., Williamson v. Lee
    Search
  23. Id., at 489 (citations omitted).7 7See also Dandridge v. Williams
    Search
  24. Heath & Milligan Mfg. Co. v. Worst
    Search
  25. Inc., 95 F. C. C. 2d 1223, 1224, n. 3 (1983), aff'd sub nom. New York State Comm'n on Cable Television v. FCC
    Search
  26. the congressional choice from constitutional challenge. Vance v. Bradley
    Search
  27. See Hampton v. Mow
    Search
  28. United States Railroad Retirement Ed. v. Fritz
    Search
  29. Syllabus Federal Communications Commission Et Al. V. Beach
    Search
  30. See Sullivan v. Stroop
    Search
  31. Lyng v. Automobile
    Search
  32. Cf. Lorillard v. Pons
    Search
  33. See Flemming v. Nestor
    Search
  34. See Nordlinger v. Hahn
    Search
  35. See Vance v. Bradley
    Search
  36. Minnesota v. Clover
    Search
  37. Carmichael v. Southern
    Search
  38. Williamson v. Lee
    Search
  39. Cable Television v. FCC
    Search
  40. See Hampton v. Mow
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial