Search for: "Fox v. FCC"
Results 261 - 280
of 445
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Nov 2011, 1:23 pm
Fox TV, ABC TV — constitutionality of FCC ban on broadcast of expletives and nudity (grant limited) Wed., Jan. 11: 10-1016 — Coleman v. [read post]
3 Nov 2022, 4:53 am
(This development was one of the factors that precipitated a tightening of the FCC's rules on the broadcast of "fleeting expletives" noted in the Court's first FCC v. [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 8:21 am
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. [read post]
8 Jun 2007, 1:12 am
FCC U.S. [read post]
8 Oct 2010, 8:53 am
The Act reinstates the FCC’s prior video description rules adopted in 2000 and subsequently struck down by the Court of Appeals in the case of MPAA v. [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 5:38 am
Neff is a partner with the law firm of Fox Rothschild LLP. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 11:53 am
FCC decision from the Second Circuit, page B1: “The decision, which many constitutional scholars expect to be appealed to the Supreme Court, stems from a challenge by Fox, CBS and other broadcasters to the FCC’s decision in 2004 . . . [read post]
20 Apr 2009, 1:12 pm
Levine, FCC v. [read post]
25 Oct 2018, 12:18 pm
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. [read post]
1 Jan 2011, 6:15 am
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 6:29 am
Fox on whether the FCC’s standards for indecency on television are too vague to be constitutional. [read post]
25 May 2011, 10:15 pm
The 2009 Supreme Court Preview volume was cited by Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion in FCC v. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 10:53 am
His performance, like the opinion in FCC v. [read post]
4 May 2009, 5:20 pm
The Supreme Court today vacated the Third Circuit's decision and remanded the case to that court "for further consideration in light of FCC v. [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 11:28 pm
Anyway, over to the wonderful world of the FCC, where the decision in FCC v Fox (PDF) does appear to have something very important to say about broadcast regulation and the ongoing life of the 1978 Pacifica decision, FCC v Pacifica 438 US 726, about those seven words mentioned in the introduction to this post. [read post]
13 Sep 2007, 5:11 pm
Circuit claiming that the "open platforms for devices and applications" portions of the auction rules (the "no locking, no blocking" rules): exceed the Commission's authority under the Communications Actviolate the United States Constitutionviolate the Administrative Procedure Actand are arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law.Just as a guess, I'd say that VZ Wireless intends to claim that, as in Fox v. [read post]
30 Jan 2009, 9:48 am
Fox or Pleasant Grove, the two high-interest cases, sometime before the end of March. [read post]
27 Jul 2008, 4:00 am
Fox Television Stations (07-582), and Vaden v. [read post]
6 Oct 2008, 12:51 pm
In keeping with the spirit of one case on the docket, FCC v. [read post]
