Laserfiche WebLink
MATT,¢w L IF18OW % ►A <br />JOHN M SPENCER ►c' <br />JOEE►H A BELISLE' <br />KATHY J afRF' <br />x ►ATMOK MEEHM <br />a rauar <br />J OW ► vWG <br />$10 oAViOM' <br />a rgrar <br />Tf 4.f4w <br />..r•.o.•.m w <br />nr.n w <br />LBBOWM & SPF1' m <br />A isnrerft 01 Protsn&* Cofporsmore <br />J u"e t .. <br />30W Bncsyne Boulevard <br />Mism Fiords 33137 <br />(305) 576.7973 <br />Twa ,X)S, en Aso <br />CABLE RbGULATORT UPDATE <br />5 At '$l' <br />YJor vfmgr+w A. N <br />eVambon Dc t000s <br />r3wI 7A''Jds3 <br />1w 11a W.-a <br />Judicial Proceedings to Match <br />Preferred Communications, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles - <br />U.S. Supreme Court. Involves an action brought by Preferred, a <br />cable television company, against the City of Los Angeles, <br />claiming that the City's franchising process violated Pre- <br />ferred's rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. Spec ifi- <br />tally, Preferred contended that its right to construct a cable <br />television system and disseminate programming via the cable <br />medium was protected by the First Amerdment. Therefore, Pre- <br />ferred argued, access to facilities (utility poles), needed to <br />exercise this First Amendment right, should not be subject to <br />the unfettered discretion of the City's franchising process. A <br />U.S. District Court dismissed Preferred's complaint, but the <br />Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lover court, in <br />March 1985, and adopted Preferred's First Amendment argument. <br />The Ninth Circuit limited the scope of Its decision to those <br />situations where a city's utility poles or unQerground conduits <br />have the capacity necessary for accomodatirg more than ore <br />c&tls system. The cas: is curr:ntly pending before the United <br />w <br />i <br />