TV PIX, INC., ET AL.

v.

TAYLOR ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States, 533 F.2d 601 (D.C. Cir. 1976)
  …ent basis for Commission jurisdiction over cable. See, e.g., General Telephone Co. v. United States, 449 F. 2d 846, 853-854 (5th Cir. 1971); TV Pix, Inc. v. Taylor, 304 F.Supp. 459, 465 (D.Nev.1968) (three-judge court) (dictum), affirmed per curiam, 396 U.S. 556, 90 S.Ct. 749, 24 L.Ed.2d 746 (1970); Barnett, State, Federal, and Local Regulation of Cable Television: An Analysis of the New FCC Rules, 1971 Duke L. J. 1151, 1166-1167. More importantly, the Supreme Court plurality in United States v. Midwest Vid…
• Springfield Television, Inc. v. The City OF Springfield, 428 F.2d 1375 (8th Cir. 1970)
  …court. That retreat conforms to the present state of the law as indicated by the Supreme Court’s recent per curiam affirmance of a 3-judge district court decision involving the Nevada Community Antenna Television System Law. TV Pix, Inc. v. Taylor, 396 U.S. 556, 90 S.Ct. 749, 24 L.Ed.2d 746 (1970), aff’g 304 F.Supp. 459 (D.Nev.1968). The district court in TV Pix, Inc. held that where the FCC promulgates specific regulations of CATV systems, it has to that extent fully occupied the field, but where the FCC…
• Springfield Television, Inc. v. The City OF Springfield, 462 F.2d 21 (8th Cir. 1972)
  …dinance or court decision.” (Emphasis ours.) There can be no constitutional doubt that a state may include a community antenna television system within the meaning of a “public utility.” TV Pix, Inc. v. Taylor, 304 F.Supp. 459 (D.Nev. 1968), aff’d, 396 U.S. 556, 90 S.Ct. 749, 24 L.Ed.2d 746 (1970). Thus, we need only decide here whether a CATV system is a “public communications system” within thp meaning of the charter. The appellees7 claim that CATV is a “distribution” system rather than a “communications…

  ← 1 / 2 →