The City of Eugene sued to collect from Comcast of Oregon II, Inc. (Comcast) a license fee that the city, acting under a municipal ordinance, imposes on companies providing “telecommunications services” over the city’s rights of way. Comcast did not dispute that it used the city’s rights of way to operate a cable system. However it objected to the city’s collection effort and argued that the license fee was either a tax barred by the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), or a franchise fee barred by the Cable Communications and Policy Act of 1984 (Cable Act). The city read those federal laws more narrowly and disputed Comcast’s interpretation. The trial court rejected Comcast’s arguments and granted summary judgment in favor of the city. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "City of Eugene v. Comcast of Oregon II, Inc." on Justia Law

New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC, an affiliate of AT&T Mobility LLC, provides both wireless voice telephone services and data services to customers in the city of Clyde Hill. Clyde Hill imposes a local utility tax on wireless telephone services, which applies to both voice and data services. New Cingular had for years collected utility taxes from Clyde Hill's residents on all charges for wireless and telephone voice and data services, and paid the tax to the city. In this case, the issue presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether the cellular service provider could challenge a city fine through an action for declaratory judgment in superior court. The trial court dismissed, holding that a declaratory judgment action was improper and judicial review should have been sought by way of a statutory writ of review under RCW 7 .16.040. The Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating the declaratory action and remanding for a decision on the merits. Finding no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. City of Clyde Hill" on Justia Law

Section 202(h) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, 110 Stat. 56, requires the Federal Communications Commission to periodically examine its broadcast ownership rules to limit consolidation in the industry. After the Third Circuit reviewed the Commission’s 2002 and 2006 reviews of its ownership rules, “the process broke down.” The 2010 and 2014 reviews are not complete. In 2016, the Third Circuit held that the Commission has unreasonably delayed action on its definition of an “eligible entity,” a term it has attempted to use as a lynchpin for initiatives to promote minority and female broadcast ownership, and ordered mediation. The court speculated that it might be necessary to invalidate FCC rules in the future if the Commission does not act quickly to carry out its legislative mandate. The court vacated a rule based on Commission’s 2014 determination that parties were evading its limits on the number of television stations that an entity can own through the influence exerted by advertising contracts known as joint sales agreements. The rule was procedurally invalid because it was adopted even though the Quadrennial Review cycle was severely backlogged. View "Howard Stirk Holdings LLC v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n" on Justia Law

Petitioners seek review of the FCC's order finding that the rates it charged long-distance telephone carrier AT&T for use of its network exceeded the amount allowed by Commission regulations. The court concluded that the Commission reasonably concluded that Great Lakes was subject to the Commission’s benchmark rule in the years prior to AT&T’s 2014 complaint. Because the Commission failed to adequately explain its conclusion that Great Lakes did not qualify for the Commission’s “rural exemption,” which would have allowed it to charge the challenged rates, the court remanded the issue to the Commission for further consideration. The court also concluded that the Commission reasonably selected the correct incumbent local exchange carrier or ILEC for purposes of determining the applicable benchmark rate. The court disposed of Great Lakes' remaining challenges and denied the petition for review in all other respects. View "Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. v. FCC" on Justia Law

Left Field publishes Chicago Baseball magazine, producing four issues per baseball season. Copies are sold for $2 outside Wrigley Field before the Chicago Cubs’ home games. On the day of the Cubs’ 2015 home opener, Chicago police officer Voulgaris saw Left Field’s editor, Smerge, selling the magazine at the corner of Clark and Addison streets. Voulgaris told Smerge to move across the street to comply with Chicago’s Adjacent Sidewalks Ordinance, which forbids all peddling on the streets adjacent to Wrigley Field. Smerge refused to move and was ticketed. Left Field sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, contending that the ordinance violates the First Amendment. Chicago agreed not to enforce the ordinance pending a decision. The 2015 season ran its course. As the playoffs began, the district court declined to issue a preliminary injunction, noting the density of the area around the field and the tight passages. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The ordinance does not regulate speech. It regulates peddling, without regard to what the peddler sells. The court noted that Left Field has never applied for a license: while additional issues could arise if the ordinance were applied to newspapers, the court expressed doubt that it would be applied to a newspaper. View "Left Field Media LLC v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Milan Jankovic, also known as Philip Zepter, filed suit against ICG for defamation based on a statement in one of its reports that linked him to the Slobodan Milosevic regime. In this appeal, the court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment to ICG. On the evidence before the district court, Zepter was a limited-purpose public figure with respect to the public controversy surrounding political and economic reform in Serbia and integration of Serbia into international institutions during the post-Milosevic era; he was not a mere bystander engaged in civic duties but was an advisor to and financial supporter of Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic, who came into power following Milosevic’s ouster; and Zepter’s mustering of evidence, deficient in part due to his procedural defaults, fails to show by clear and convincing evidence that ICG acted with actual malice in publishing the statement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Milan Jankovic v. International Crisis Group" on Justia Law

Over the past decade, Attorney Novoselsky has filed many lawsuits alleging improprieties by Dorothy Brown, in her capacity as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Brown later made statements to private parties, the public, and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee, accusing Novoselsky of being an unscrupulous attorney. Novoselsky sued Brown under state law for defamation and under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for First Amendment retaliation, and he sought to hold Cook County liable for Brown’s actions. Brown unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment, arguing that her communications are protected from liability by immunity. The Seventh Circuit reversed. On the state‐law defamation claim, Brown’s communications were all statements reasonably related to her official duties. Illinois state law provides immunity to Brown for claims based on these statements. Brown is also entitled to summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim, for all she did to retaliate was criticize Novoselsky, so Cook County is also entitled to summary judgment. View "Novoselsky v. Brown" on Justia Law

Alco, a vending machine company, contracted with B2B, a “fax broadcaster,” in 2005, and dealt with B2B and Macaw, a Romanian business, that worked with B2B. Each sample advertisement provided by B2B stated that the message was “the exclusive property of Macaw . . . , which is solely responsible for its contents and destinations.” According to Alco, B2B was to identify recipients from a list of businesses that had consented to receive fax advertising from B2B. Alco never saw this list, but believed that each business would be located near Alco’s Ohio headquarters, and had an existing relationship with B2B, so that the advertising would be “100 percent legal.” B2B broadcast several thousand faxes, advertising Alco. According to Alco, B2B did not inform Alco about the number of faxes, the dates on which they were sent, or the specific businesses to which they were addressed. After each broadcast, Alco received complaints of unauthorized faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), which it referred to B2B. Siding filed a purported class action against Alco. The district court rejected the suit on summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for determination of whether B2B broadcast the faxes “on behalf of” Alco, considering the degree of control that Alco exercised, whether Alco approved the final content, and the contractual relationship. View "Siding and Insulation Co. v. Alco Vending, Inc." on Justia Law

HCEA was recognized under the Tennessee Education Professional Negotiations Act (EPNA) as the exclusive representative of Hamilton County Board of Education professional employees. In 2011, HCEA and the Board entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), to expire in June 2014. While this agreement was in effect, Tennessee enacted the Professional Educators Collaborative Conferencing Act, replacing EPNA. PECCA would not govern the parties’ relationship until the expiration of their existing agreement. HCEA and the Board entered into the latest version of their CBA under EPNA in September 2013. PECCA created a new category: “management team” members, including principals and assistant principals, no longer considered “professional employees” entitled to participate in concerted activities as part of professional employee organizations. PECCA also made it unlawful for a professional employee organization to “[c]oerce or attempt to intimidate professional employees who choose not to join a professional employee organization.” Communications following HCEA’s September 2013 monthly meeting resulted in a Board letter, requesting that HCEA “refrain from … negative or coercive statements.” HCEA filed suit, alleging violation of EPNA and the First Amendment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment favoring the Board. EPNA claims were not rendered moot by PECCA’s intervening effective date, but the letter did not violate EPNA. It contained no threat of reprisal and did not significantly burden HCEA’s expressive activity. View "Hamilton Cnty. Ed. Ass'n. v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ." on Justia Law

AT&T sought to acquire T-Mobil, then a subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom, and merge its operations and infrastructure into itself. For months after the proposal was announced, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the U.S. Department of Justice, and state regulatory agencies, investigated to determine whether the merger would have adverse effects on competition and customer service, and if so, whether mitigation measures were warranted as a condition of approval. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) sought to complete the investigation of a complex transaction having national scope within a few months because FCC proceedings were unfolding on an expedited schedule. CPUC invited participation from intervenors, including TURN and CforAT. TURN apparently took a leading role and won several procedural victories. Before CPUC completed comments for submission to the FCC, AT&T and Telekom unexpectedly announced the withdrawal of their proposed merger. CPUC dismissed the proceeding as moot, but decided several collateral matters, and stated that requests for intervenor compensation “are appropriate.” TURN and CforAT sought intervenor compensation. Based on detailed findings explaining their “substantial contributions,” CPUC issued awards over opposition by proponents of the merger. The court of appeal vacated the awards without prejudice to renewal and redetermination of the requests. The awards were consistent with CPUC’s long-standing position and with the statutory scheme. The court rejected the “broad” rationale relied upon by CPUC in the orders. View "New Cingular Wireless PCS v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n of Cal." on Justia Law