Legal Opinion
Catalina Cablevision Associates a Joint Venture v. City of Tucson
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 25, 1984No. 83-2460PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
POOLE, Circuit Judge:
Catalina Cablevision Associates (“Catalina”) brought action against the City of Tucson, an Arizona Municipal Corporation, alleging that Tucson violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2, by issuing one, non-exclusive license for cable television service in Tucson. The narrow question presented by this appeal is whether the “state action” immunity established in Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 63 S.Ct. 307, 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943), exempts the City’s actions from challenge under the federal antitrust laws.
I
Catalina was formed for the purpose of developing and operating a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Parker v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Community Communications Co. v. City of BoulderSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Turf Paradise, Inc., an Arizona Corporation v. Arizona Downs, an Arizona CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- City Communications, Inc. v. The City of Detroit Barden Cable-Vision and MacLeanCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1989
- Byre v. City of ChamberlainSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
- Communications Systems, Inc. v. City of Danville, Kentucky Rv Cablevision, Inc. George Cunningham Mark Dexter Roy Arnold and John BowlingCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1989
- Preferred Communications, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Preferred Communications, Inc. v. City Of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.