enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Tennessee v. FCC - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._FCC

    Tennessee v. Federal Communications Commission, 832 F.3d 597 (2016), was a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, [1] holding that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not have the authority to preempt states from enforcing "anti-expansion" statutes that prohibit local municipal broadband networks from being expanded into nearby communities.

  3. Tomás de Cardona - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomás_de_Cardona

    Cardona, Merás and Paraya, all of whom were residents of Seville, petitioned the Spanish Crown for permission to voyage to the pearl fisheries of California and harvest pearl oysters using their vessels and certain implements in their possession they claimed would enable them to collect pearl oysters from depths of twenty-five to fifty fathoms, i.e., 150–300 feet (46–91 m).

  4. Interstate compact - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_compact

    However, in a report released in October 2019 about the proposed National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893)—reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v.

  5. Uniform Commercial Code adoption - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code...

    The following table identifies which articles in the UCC each U.S. jurisdiction has currently adopted. However, it does not make any distinctions for the various official revisions to the UCC, the selection of official alternative language offered in the UCC, or unofficial changes made to the UCC by some jurisdictions.

  6. Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_v._Standard_Oil_Co...

    Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal. , 405 U.S. 251 (1972), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act does not authorize a U.S. state to sue for damages for an injury to its general economy allegedly attributable to a violation of the United States antitrust law .

  7. Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Wine_and_Spirits...

    Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, No. 18-96, 588 U.S. 504 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that Tennessee's two-year durational-residency requirement applicable to retail liquor store license applicants violated the Commerce Clause (Dormant Commerce Clause) and was not authorized by the Twenty-first Amendment.

  8. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Coal,_Iron...

    Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590 (1944), was an important decision of the United States Supreme Court with regard to the interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). [1] This set a precedent for an expansive construction of the language of the FLSA.

  9. Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brentwood_Academy_v...

    Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 531 U.S. 288 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether the actions of an interscholastic sport-association that regulated sports among Tennessee schools could be regarded as a state actor for First Amendment and Due Process purposes. [1]