Search for: "Powers v. Fox Television Stations, Inc." Results 1 - 20 of 46
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Dec 2023, 6:49 pm by Chuck Cosson
  That could be accomplished through law and regulation, of course, and there are examples in the law of ways in which such laws balance incentives and interests, e.g., compulsory licensing schemes for cable TV stations retransmitting copyrighted content. [read post]
11 Jan 2023, 11:33 am by Will Baude
Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 525-26 (2009) (plurality opinion). [read post]
15 Apr 2020, 1:59 pm by Eugene Volokh
From Russian television stations to Philadelphia magazine, many wanted to hear from "Philly's Biggest Trump Supporter. [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 8:09 am by sydniemery
§ 11:32 (3d ed. 2018) is cited in the following article: Dina Ljekperic, Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 7:24 am by Katherine Kelley
While this received a lot of attention, the typical sextortion victim lacks the resources, position of power and public platform that enabled Bezos to come forward with and own his story. [read post]
4 Feb 2018, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
Kenya The Government shutdown down three television stations after they tried to broadcast images of the opposition leader’s mock inauguration, a ceremony considered treasonous. [read post]
18 Feb 2016, 9:30 pm by Kim Kirschenbaum
Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2009) The question here is whether a court must defer under Chevron to an agency’s interpretation of a statutory ambiguity that concerns the scope of the agency’s statutory authority (that is, its jurisdiction). [read post]
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]