Legal Opinion
Altmann v. Television Signal Corp.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided March 30, 1994No. C 94-0071 VRWPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BACKGROUND
CAULFIELD, District Judge.
Defendant Television Signal Corporation (“Viacom”) is the monopoly provider of cable television services to approximately 161,000 households in San Francisco. Marx Decl, ¶ 2. The 1988 amendment of the franchise agreement between Viacom and the City of San Francisco provided that Viacom “shall continue to provide an opportunity for public expression by the continuation of ... public access on Channel 25.” Witteman Decl., Exh. 1 at p. 5, § 2(a)(4). Viacom also is required, by federal statute, to provide a specified amount of leased access to its cablecasting…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Elrod v. BurnsSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Blum v. YaretskySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Hudgens v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- McClellan v. Cablevision of Connecticut, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- Mcclellan v. Cablevision Of Connecticut, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- Leach v. MediacomDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 2003
- McClellan v. Cablevision of Connecticut, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1997