Search for: "FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc" Results 21 - 40 of 108
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Dec 2014, 2:52 pm by Cynthia L. Hackerott
Turning to ABC’s assertion that the final rule is arbitrary and capricious, the court first rejected the argument that the revised regulations were subject to heightened review under the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in FCC v Fox Television Stations, Inc. [read post]
14 Dec 2014, 5:59 pm by Joy Waltemath
Turning to ABC’s assertion that the final rule is arbitrary and capricious, the court first rejected the argument that the revised regulations were subject to heightened review under the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in FCC v Fox Television Stations, Inc. [read post]
1 Oct 2014, 10:23 am
For instance, in In re Fox Television Stations, Inc. (1993), the FCC ruled: Similarly, we cannot deny grant of a waiver based on allegations, even if true, that Murdoch will practice, as he purportedly did under his former ownership of the Post, racist and inflammatory journalism. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 11:12 am by Eugene Volokh
The Act is therefore far more like the ordinance in Neighborhood Enterprises, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 8:51 am by Lyle Denniston
Fox Television Stations, et al., 10-1293). [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 1:45 pm by WIMS
"       The Appeals Court said, "This kind of argument is largely foreclosed by FCC v. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 1:01 pm by Jonathan E. Allen
Fox Television Stations, Inc., et al, the Court found that this policy, as applied to Fox and ABC, was impermissibly vague in violation of these broadcasters’ due process rights. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 1:01 pm by Jonathan E. Allen
Fox Television Stations, Inc., et al, the Court found that this policy, as applied to Fox and ABC, was impermissibly vague in violation of these broadcasters’ due process rights. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 1:01 pm by Jonathan E. Allen
Fox Television Stations, Inc., et al, the Court found that this policy, as applied to Fox and ABC, was impermissibly vague in violation of these broadcasters’ due process rights. [read post]