skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Your query communications returned 72 results.

1000 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. FCC
[Syllabus]
The Federal Communications Commission can require state utility commissions to set the rates charged for leased telecommunications network elements on a forward-looking basis untied to the network owners' investment, and can require those owners to combine such elements upon the request of a leasing competitor that cannot do the combining itself.
1000 SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO. V. APCC SERVICES, INC.
[Syllabus]
1000 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. LAW OFFICESOF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
[Syllabus]
1. Whether allegations of inadequacies in a monopolist's affirmative assistance to its rivals, including resellers—as newly provided by incumbent local telephone companies under the Telecommunications Act of 1996—state a claim for unlawful unilateral predatory conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act 2. Whether antitrust and Communications Act standing extends to indirect purchasers, I.e., the customers of the defendant's customer, asserting injuries wholly derivative of the direct customer's injury, even when invoking only the direct customer's legal rights.
1000 FCC V. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC.
[Syllabus]
Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from revoking licenses held by a bankruptcy debtor upon the debtor's failure to make timely payments to the FCC for purchase of the licenses.
1000 METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[Dissent]
1000 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
1000 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Opinion]
1000 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Concurrence]
1000 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Dissent]
1000 METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[Dissent]
1000 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Syllabus]
1000 METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[Concurrence]
1000 METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[Syllabus]
1000 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
1000 METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[Opinion]
1000 MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN
[Syllabus]
967 FCC V. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC.
[Syllabus]
Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from revoking licenses held by a bankruptcy debtor upon the debtor's failure to make timely payments to the FCC for purchase of the licenses.
955 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. FCC
[Syllabus]
The Federal Communications Commission can require state utility commissions to set the rates charged for leased telecommunications network elements on a forward-looking basis untied to the network owners' investment, and can require those owners to combine such elements upon the request of a leasing competitor that cannot do the combining itself.
932
[Syllabus]
849 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. LAW OFFICESOF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
[Syllabus]
1. Whether allegations of inadequacies in a monopolist's affirmative assistance to its rivals, including resellers—as newly provided by incumbent local telephone companies under the Telecommunications Act of 1996—state a claim for unlawful unilateral predatory conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act 2. Whether antitrust and Communications Act standing extends to indirect purchasers, I.e., the customers of the defendant's customer, asserting injuries wholly derivative of the direct customer's injury, even when invoking only the direct customer's legal rights.
794 NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V.BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES
[Syllabus]
729 DENVER AREA EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM, INC,., ET AL. V. F.C.C., 518 U.S. 727 (1996)
[Syllabus]
702 SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO. V. APCC SERVICES, INC.
[Syllabus]
676 AT&T CORP. V. IOWA UTILITIES BD., 525 U.S. 366 (1999)
[Syllabus]
676 DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR V. KLAMATHWATER USERS PROTECTIVE ASSN.
[Syllabus]
Documents passing between Indian Tribes and the Interior Department addressing tribal interests subject to state and federal water-allocation proceedings are not exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act as "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters" under FOIA Exemption 5.
644
[Syllabus]
608 TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. V. F.C.C., 520 U.S. 180 (1997)
[Syllabus]
608 AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC., 524 U.S. 214 (1998)
[Syllabus]
570 RENO V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 117 S.CT. 2329, 138 L.ED.2D 874 (1997)
[Syllabus]
570
[Syllabus]
570 GLOBAL CROSSING TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. V.METROPHONES TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
[Syllabus]
526 UNITED STATES V. JICARILLA APACHE NATION
[Syllabus]
526 SWIDLER & BERLIN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 399 (1998)
[Syllabus]
470 METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990)
[Syllabus]
470 PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. LINKLINECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
[Syllabus]
470 BARTNICKI V. VOPPER
[Syllabus]
Respondent news media's disclosure of the contents of an illegally intercepted cell phone conversation about a public issue is protected by the First Amendment.
470 FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N V. AKINS, 524 U.S. 11 (1998)
[Syllabus]
405
[Syllabus]
405 NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSN.,INC. V. GULF POWER CO.
[Syllabus]
The Pole Attachments Act authorizes the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the rates that utilities charge for attachments providing high-speed Internet access at the same time as cable television and for attachments providing wireless telecommunications.
405 CHENEY V. UNITED STATES DIST. COURT FOR D. C.
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 1, §§ 1 et seq., can be construed, consistent with the Constitution, principles of separation of powers, and this Court's decisions governing judicial review of Executive Branch actions, to authorize broad discovery of the process by which the Vice President and other senior advisors gathered information to advise the President on important national policy matters, based solely on an unsupported allegation in a complaint that the advisory group was not constituted as the President expressly directed and the advisory group itself reported? (2) Whether the court of appeals had mandamus or appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's unprecedented discovery orders in this litigation?
405 GUSTAFSON V. ALLOYD CO., 513 U.S. 561 (1995).
[Syllabus]
320 FOWLER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
320 UNITED STATES V. NAVAJO NATION
[Syllabus]
Under United States v. Mitchell, 445 U. S. 535, and United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, the Navajo Tribe's claim for compensation from the Government based on the Interior Secretary's actions with respect to a coal lease between the Tribe and a private lessee fails, for it does not derive from any liability-imposing provision of the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 or its implementing regulations.
320
[Syllabus]
320 ONTARIO V. QUON
[Syllabus]
320 ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
[Syllabus]
The Child Online Protection Act's reliance on "community standards" to identify what World Wide Web material "is harmful to minors" does not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for First Amendment purposes.
320 JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996)
[Syllabus]
320
[Syllabus]
320 CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN
[Syllabus]
320 FCC V. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC.
[Syllabus]
320 FCC V. AT&T INC.
[Syllabus]
320
[Syllabus]
320 NIXON V. MISSOURI MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
[Syllabus]
Whether 47 U.S.C. 253(a), which provides that "[n]o State ... regulation ... may prohibit ... the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service," preempts a state law prohibiting political subdivisions of the state from offering telecommunications service to the public?
320 HILL V. COLORADO
[Syllabus]
1. Does Colorado's statutory requirement that speakers obtain consent from passersby on public sidewalks and streets before speaking, displaying signs, or distributing leaflets unconstitutionally burden protected expressive rights in a traditional public forum? 2.Does Colorado's statutory designation of private citizens as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets on public streets and sidewalks impose an unconstitutional prior restraint? 3. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit content-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets subject to strict scrutiny? 4. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit viewpoint-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets unconstitutional per se?
320 ABUELHAWA V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
320 RANCHO PALOS VERDES V. ABRAMS
[Syllabus]
202
[Syllabus]
202 TALK AMERICA, INC. V. MICHIGAN BELLTELEPHONE CO.
[Syllabus]
202 BELL ATLANTIC CORP. V. TWOMBLY
[Syllabus]
202
[Syllabus]
202
[Syllabus]
202
[Syllabus]
202 UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS
[Syllabus]
202 MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC. V. CARPENTER
[Syllabus]
202 ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
[Syllabus]
Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
202 DASTAR CORP. V. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOXFILM CORP.
[Syllabus]
1. Does the Lanham Act protect creative works form uncredited copying, even without a likelihood of consumer confusion? 2. May a court applying the Lanham Act award twice the defendant's profits for purely deterrent purposes?
202 FIRST OPTIONS OF CHICAGO, INC. V. KAPLAN, 514 U.S. 938 (1995).
[Syllabus]
202 GRANITE ROCK CO. V. TEAMSTERS
[Syllabus]
202 FDA V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP.
[Syllabus]
Whether, given FDA's findings, tobacco products are subject to regulation under the Act as ""drugs"" and ""devices.
202 TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA V.PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO.
[Syllabus]
202 MARQUEZ V. SCREEN ACTORS
[Syllabus]
202 REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINN. V. WHITE
[Syllabus]
The Minnesota Supreme Court's canon of judicial conduct prohibiting candidates for judicial election from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues violates the First Amendment.
202 VERIZON MD. INC. V. PUBLIC SERV. COMMN OF MD.
[Syllabus]
Title 28 U. S. C. §1331 provides a basis for federal-court jurisdiction over a telecommunication carrier's claim that a state public utility commission's order requiring reciprocal compensation for telephone calls to Internet service providers is pre-empted by federal law; the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, permits the suit to go forward against the state commissioners in their official capacities.
202 GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING ASSN., INC.V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
202 ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995).
[Syllabus]
202
[Syllabus]
202 ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION
[Syllabus]
Provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 prohibiting "any visual depiction" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," as well as any sexually explicit image "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts a minor engaging in such conduct, are overbroad and therefore violate the First Amendment.
202 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC.
[Syllabus]
202 PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS
[Syllabus]
When a hostile work environment created by a supervisor culminates in a constructive discharge, may the employer assert an affirmative defense?
202
[Syllabus]
202
[Syllabus]
202 UNITED STATES V. HUBBELL
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination protects information previously recorded in voluntarily created documents that a defendant delivers to the government pursuant to an immunized act of production. 2. Whether a defendant's act producing ordinary business records constitutes a compelled testimonial communication solely because the government cannot identify the documents with reasonable particularity before they are produced."
202 UNITED STATES V. PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENTGROUP, INC.
[Syllabus]
1. Whether Section 505 violates the First Amendment. 2. Whether the three-judge district court was divested of jurisdiction to dispose of the government's post- judgment motions under Rule 59 (e) and 60 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the government's filing of a notice of appeal while those motion were pending.
202 STONERIDGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC V.SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC.
[Syllabus]
202 WRIGHT V. UNIVERSAL MARITIME SERVICE CORP.
[Syllabus]
202 561 U.S. ____ (2010)
[Syllabus]
202 HOWSAM V. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC.
[Syllabus]
A National Association of Securities Dealers arbitrator, rather than a court, should apply the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure's time limit rule to a client's dispute with a broker.