Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Rca

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 24, 1959

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

43 entries 1 linked 42 unlinked
Show
  1. Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. Vs. Adkins US Supreme Court · May 20, 1940
  2. U.S. 334 (1959) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. RCA
    Search
  3. U.S. 334 (1959) United States v. Radio
    Search
  4. b). See Far East Conference v. United
    Search
  5. Chapman v. Federal
    Search
  6. was merely a small part. They argue that the sentence was intended to permit only actions such as in Packaged Programs v. Westinghouse
    Search
  7. jurisdiction doctrine. The doctrine originated with Mr. Justice (later Chief Justice) White in Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene
    Search
  8. A second reason for the doctrine was suggested by Mr. Justice Brandeis in Great Northern R. Co. v. Merchants
    Search
  9. United States v. Pacific
    Search
  10. Keogh v. Chicago
    Search
  11. United States Navigation Co. v. Cunard
    Search
  12. Georgia v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  13. Far East Conference v. United
    Search
  14. sometimes emphasized the need for administrative uniformity and uniform rates, Page 358 U. S. 348 Keogh v. Chicago
    Search
  15. the relevant facts in a complex industry as a foundation for later court action. United States Navigation Co. v. Cunard
    Search
  16. S.S. Co., supra, and Far East Conference v. United
    Search
  17. States, supra, as explained in Federal Maritime Board v. Isbrandtsen
    Search
  18. of free competition is placed beside a regulatory scheme involving fixed rates is obvious. Cf. McLean Trucking Co. v. United
    Search
  19. Radio broadcasters, including television broadcasters, see Allen B. Dumont Laboratories Page 358 U. S. 349 v. Carroll
    Search
  20. broadcasters remain free to set their own advertising rates. As this Court said in Federal Communications Comm'n v. Sanders
    Search
  21. Federal Radio Comm'n v. Nelson
    Search
  22. Federal Communications Comm'n v. Pottsville
    Search
  23. Federal Communications Comm'n v. Sanders
    Search
  24. Federal Communications Comm'n v. RCA
    Search
  25. National Broadcasting Co. v. United
    Search
  26. Mansfield Journal Co. v. Federal
    Search
  27. We recently explained the nature of the doctrine in United States v. Western
    Search
  28. This followed because, in the words of Mr. Justice Brandeis in Keogh v. Chicago
    Search
  29. This Court, in Georgia v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  30. filed cooperatively, the doctrine equally applies to an attack on the alleged conspiracy. United States Navigation Co. v. Cunard
    Search
  31. Such exemptions are, however, subject to review, see Federal Maritime Board v. Isbrandtsen
    Search
  32. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. RCA
    Search
  33. United States v. Radio
    Search
  34. See Far East Conference v. United
    Search
  35. Chapman v. Federal
    Search
  36. Packaged Programs v. Westinghouse
    Search
  37. Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene
    Search
  38. Great Northern R. Co. v. Merchants
    Search
  39. and Far East Conference v. United
    Search
  40. Federal Maritime Board v. Isbrandtsen
    Search
  41. Cf. McLean Trucking Co. v. United
    Search
  42. Federal Radio Comm'n v. Nelson
    Search
  43. United States v. Western
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial