Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUSAN WILSON COWAN, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 21-cv-895-RMM FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is a FOIA action brought by journalist Susan Wilson Cowan (“Ms. Wilson”) against the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). Ms. Wilson seeks documents t

SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge: I. INTRODUCTION We review the order that the Federal Communications Commission entered as a result of our decision in California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir.1990) (California I). In that case, we remanded for reconsideration certain FCC orders, known as Computer III,1 that specified the conditions under

ROBB, Circuit Judge: This is a petition to review an order of the Federal Communications Commission which rejected a complaint filed by the petitioners against certain broadcasting licensees. The complaint alleged that the broadcasters had failed to fulfill their Fairness Doctrine obligations, growing out of advertisements for a particular brand of gasoline. The Commission rejected the complaint on the ground that the broadc

Filed 3/27/20 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A156253 v. (City & County of San Francisco RON COWAN, Super. Ct. Nos. 229497/18005814, 229

Opinion for the Court filed by McGOWAN, Circuit Judge. McGOWAN, Circuit Judge: These three consolidated petitions for review challenge various aspects of the Federal Communications Commission’s Fairness Report. That Report was the product of an inquiry by the FCC, extending five years from its initiation in 1971, the issuance of the Report in 1974, and the denial of reconsiderat

McGOWAN, Circuit Judge: Petitioners in this statutory review proceeding attack the dismissal by the Federal Communications Commission, without hearing or oral argument, of their fairness doctrine complaint in respect of Station WNBC-TV in New York City. The issue raised is that of the reach of the fairness doctrine in relation to product advertising, in this instance automobile and gasoline commercials. For the reasons her

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT, MOOTING APPEAL, DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLETE DEPOSITION and SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE DENISE PAGE HOOD, District Judge. I. BACKGROUND A. Procedural Posture On April 23, 2014, Plaintiff Drew Ster-rett filed the instant action aga

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 2022 MSPB 2 Docket No. CB-1216-16-0018-T-1 Special Counsel, Petitioner, v. Rodney Cowan, Respondent.

PRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. These are petitions to review three orders of the Federal Communications Commission relating to rates of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. The eight proceedings, separately filed, were consolidated for argument and decision. The three orders are a Tentative Decision, released March 20, 1964, a Memorandum Opinion and Order, released December 24, 1964, and a Memorandum Opinion and O

10/26/2020 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 23, 2020 Session LAURA COWAN COFFEY v. DAVID L. COFFEY Appeal from the Chancery Court for Knox County No. 189999-2 Robert E. Lee Davies, Senior Judge No. E2020-00157-COA-R3-CV T

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA ANGELICA RAMIREZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant and Appellant. S273802 Second Appellate District, Division Four B309408 Los Angeles County Superior Court 20STCV25987 July 15, 2024 Ju

50 Cal.4th 401 (2010) THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT WESLEY COWAN, Defendant and Appellant. No. S055415. Supreme Court of California. August 5, 2010. *414 Mark Goldrosen, under appointment by the Supreme Court; Weinberg & Wilder and Nina Wilder for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Br

[Cite as Cowan v. Ohio Dept. of Jobs & Family Servs., 2021-Ohio-1798.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO MARY COWAN, : APPEAL NO. C-200025 TRIAL NO. A-1901563 Appellant, : : O P I N I

Filed 2/18/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR ANGELICA RAMIREZ, B309408 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20STCV25987) v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgme

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1168 Doc: 92 Filed: 02/20/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-1168 SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT; ARISTA MUSIC; ARISTA RECORDS, LLC; LAFACE RECORDS LLC; PROVIDENT LABEL GROUP, LLC; SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT US LATIN LLC; VOLCANO ENTERTAINME

531 S.E.2d 785 (2000) 243 Ga. App. 388 COWAN v. The STATE. No. A99A1627. Court of Appeals of Georgia. March 21, 2000. Reconsideration Denied April 10, 2000. Certiorari Denied September 29, 2000. *788 Timothy W. Hoffman, Decatur, for appellant. J. Tom Morgan, Distric

BAZELON, Chief Judge: In this appeal we are asked to review the Federal Communications Commission’s refusal to permit the voluntary reimbursement of expenses to the appellant, the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, by a broadcast licensee. The proposed reimbursement was for legal advice and other services rende

502 F.2d 411 163 U.S.App.D.C. 409 Alan F. NECKRITZ and Lawrence B. Ordower, Petitioners,v.FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States ofAmerica, Respondents, Westinghouse BroadcastingCompany, Inc., et al., Intervenors. No. 71-1392. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued April 23, 1973.Deci

316 F.Supp.2d 1061 (2004) Leon S. COWAN, Plaintiff, v. UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 501, Shawnee County, Kansas, Defendant. No. CIV.A.02-2255-CM. United States District Court, D. Kansas. February 19, 2004. *1062 *1063 Pantaleon Florez, Jr., Topeka, KS, for Plaintiff. Evelyn Z. Wilson, Thomas

CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge: After affirming our prior judgment in part and reversing in part, the United States Supreme Court remanded this case for a determination of whether the California Dental Association’s advertising restrictions are anticompetitive under rule-of-reason analysis. Having closely examined the record under the rule of reason, we conclude that the Fe