Tv Pix, Inc v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 02 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 214,214 |
| Citation | Tv Pix, Inc v. Taylor, 396 U.S. 556, 90 S.Ct. 749, 24 L.Ed.2d 746 (1970) |
| Parties | TV PIX, INC., et al. v. Reese H. TAYLOR et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
George M. McMillan, for appellants.
Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen. of Nevada, for appellees.
Solicitor General Griswold and Henry Geller, for the United States, amici curiae.
Paul Rodgers, for National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Com'rs, amicus curiae.
E. Stratford Smith and Bruce Lovett, for National Cable Television Ass'n, Inc., amici curiae.
The motion of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, is granted. The motion for leave to file the motion to dismiss or affirm is also granted.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
25 cases
-
Storer Cable Com. v. City of Montgomery, Ala., Civ. A. No. 90-T-958-N.
...v. City of Fremont, 302 F.Supp. 652 (N.D.Ohio 1968); Wells TV, 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). Without delving into the question of whether these decisions actually support the propositions for which they are cited, th......
-
Capitol Cablevision Corp. v. Hardesty
...cable television systems was described in TV Pix Inc. v. Taylor, 304 F.Supp. 459 (D.Nev.1969), aff'd without opinion, 396 U.S. 556, 90 S.Ct. 749, 24 L.Ed.2d 746 (1970). There, the State of Nevada sought to regulate CATV systems as public utilities. The District Court rejected the plaintiff'......
-
Community Communications Co., Inc. v. City of Boulder, Colo., 80-1348
...context. See also People v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 125 Colo. 167, 243 P.2d 397. The Supreme Court in TV Pix, Inc. v. Taylor, 396 U.S. 556, 90 S.Ct. 749, 24 L.Ed.2d 746, affirmed a three-judge court decision (304 F.Supp. 459, D.Nev.) holding that the regulation of the community ant......
-
National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Com'rs v. F. C. C.
...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, 1......
Get Started for Free