Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Connecticut Committee Against Pay TV et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al., 1962 — 371 U.S. 816 · caselaw · US
General
Connecticut Committee Against Pay TV et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
371 U.S. 816·Supreme Court of the United States·1962
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 161.
Connecticut Committee Against Pay TV et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
Marcus Cohn for petitioners.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger, Irwin A. Seibel, Max D. Paglin, Daniel R. Ohlbaum and Ruth V. Reel for the Federal Communications Commission, and Harold David Cohen and W. Theodore Pierson for RKO General Phonevision Co., respondents.
[MAJORITY]
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.