Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC is the general title of a series of cases heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 2003 to 2019. A media activist group, Prometheus Radio Project, challenged new media ownership rules put forth by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2002.
United States v. Extreme Associates, 431 F.3d 150 (3rd Cir. 2005), is a 2005 U.S. law case revolving around issues of obscenity. Extreme Associates, a pornography company owned by Rob Zicari and his wife Lizzy Borden (also known as Janet Romano), was prosecuted by the federal government for alleged distribution of obscenity across state lines.
Both orders were challenged, and the cases consolidated into the ongoing Prometheus IV case at the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit ruled in September 2019 that the FCC still had not "adequately considered the effects" of the new rules on "diversity in broadcast media ownership," vacating both the 2017 and 2018 rules. [ 4 ]
Ultimately, the Third Circuit ruled that Hermitage School District could not punish Layshock for his off-campus speech simply because that speech reached inside the school via computer networks. [1] The fact that Layschock's speech was arguably vulgar was ruled irrelevant per J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District [ 7 ] and related precedents ...
The Third Circuit said this was "the most significant legal issue in this case because it underlies 3M's argument." 3M's position was that "above-cost pricing cannot give rise to an antitrust offense as a matter of law, since it is the very conduct that the antitrust laws wish to promote in the interest of making consumers better off."
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: Full case name: Sharon Taxman v. Board of Education of Township of Piscataway: Argued: November 29, 1995: Reargued: May 14, 1996: Decided: August 8, 1996: Citation: 91 F.3d 1547: Case history; Subsequent history: Settled prior to Supreme Court hearing. Court membership; Judges sitting
Citing the Third Circuit's precedent from the 2018 case S.E.R.L. v. Attorney Gen. U.S., this exception to deportation proceedings only applies to groups that are socially distinct within their country, Bibas reasoned that victims of police violence is not a satisfactory classification. [6]
United States v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., [1] was a 2005 Third Circuit antitrust decision in the United States finding that Dentsply, a monopolist manufacturer-supplier of dental supplies, used its exclusive dealing policy to keep rival firms' sales "below the critical level necessary for any rival to pose a real threat to Dentsply's market share,".