Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query communications returned 72 results.

	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.
	SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO. V. APCC SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	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.
	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.
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Dissent]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Opinion]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Concurrence]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Dissent]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Dissent]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Syllabus]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Concurrence]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [Opinion]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	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.
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V.BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES [Syllabus]
	DENVER AREA EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM, INC,., ET AL. V. F.C.C., 518 U.S. 727 (1996) [Syllabus]
	SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO. V. APCC SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	AT&T CORP. V. IOWA UTILITIES BD., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. V. F.C.C., 520 U.S. 180 (1997) [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC., 524 U.S. 214 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RENO V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 117 S.CT. 2329, 138 L.ED.2D 874 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GLOBAL CROSSING TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. V.METROPHONES TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. JICARILLA APACHE NATION [Syllabus]
	SWIDLER & BERLIN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 399 (1998) [Syllabus]
	METRO BROADCASTING, INC. V. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990) [Syllabus]
	PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. LINKLINECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. [Syllabus]
	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.
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N V. AKINS, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	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?
	GUSTAFSON V. ALLOYD CO., 513 U.S. 561 (1995). [Syllabus]
	FOWLER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	ONTARIO V. QUON [Syllabus]
	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.
	JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN [Syllabus]
	FCC V. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC. [Syllabus]
	FCC V. AT&T INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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?
	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?
	ABUELHAWA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	RANCHO PALOS VERDES V. ABRAMS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	TALK AMERICA, INC. V. MICHIGAN BELLTELEPHONE CO. [Syllabus]
	BELL ATLANTIC CORP. V. TWOMBLY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC. V. CARPENTER [Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [Syllabus] Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
	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?
	FIRST OPTIONS OF CHICAGO, INC. V. KAPLAN, 514 U.S. 938 (1995). [Syllabus]
	GRANITE ROCK CO. V. TEAMSTERS [Syllabus]
	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.
	TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. OF AMERICA V.PACIFIC GAS & ELEC. CO. [Syllabus]
	MARQUEZ V. SCREEN ACTORS [Syllabus]
	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.
	VERIZON MD. INC. V. PUBLIC SERV. COMM’N 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.
	GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING ASSN., INC.V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC. [Syllabus]
	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?
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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."
	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.
	STONERIDGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC V.SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC. [Syllabus]
	WRIGHT V. UNIVERSAL MARITIME SERVICE CORP. [Syllabus]
	561 U. S. ____ (2010) [Syllabus]
	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.