Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

The Fcc, Cable Tv, And Visions Of Valhalla: Judicial Scrutiny Of Complex Rulemaking And Institutional Competence, Allen E. Shoenberger Jan 1979

The Fcc, Cable Tv, And Visions Of Valhalla: Judicial Scrutiny Of Complex Rulemaking And Institutional Competence, Allen E. Shoenberger

University of Richmond Law Review

A number of recent decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, its counterpart for the Eighth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court, have substantially curtailed the power of the FCC to regulate the growth of cable television. Such regulation has proved to be a very complicated and extended saga of FCC activity, one measure of which was the extraordinary justification for publishing a per curiam opinion in Home Box Office, Inc. v. FCC: "not because it has received less than full consideration by the court, but because the complexity of the issues raised …


Government By Judiciary: John Hart Ely's "Invitation", Raoul Berger Jan 1979

Government By Judiciary: John Hart Ely's "Invitation", Raoul Berger

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.


Marbury V. Madison, Lord Coke, And Dr. Bonham: Relics Of The Past, Guidelines For The Present—Judicial Review Intransition?, George P. Smith, Ii Jan 1979

Marbury V. Madison, Lord Coke, And Dr. Bonham: Relics Of The Past, Guidelines For The Present—Judicial Review Intransition?, George P. Smith, Ii

Seattle University Law Review

The purpose of this article is to explore the modern significance of Coke's influence as analyzed and interpreted through the famous Bonham's Case and thereby to provide an insight into the development of our own concepts of judicial review, as borrowed from the English, in its original historical legal perspective and as seen through the decision in Marbury v. Madison and applied modernly in the principle case of Baker v. Carr.