Election law changes? Our legislation tracker’s got you. Check it out!

FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSION v. NELSON BROTHERS BOND & MORTGAGE CO. (STATION WIBO) (1933)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSION v. NELSON BROTHERS BOND & MORTGAGE CO. (STATION WIBO)
Term: 1932
Important Dates
Argued: April 11, 1933
Decided: May 8, 1933
Outcome
Reversed
Vote
9-0
Majority
Louis Dembitz BrandeisPierce ButlerBenjamin Nathan CardozoCharles Evans HughesJames Clark McReynoldsOwen Josephus RobertsHarlan Fiske StoneGeorge SutherlandWillis Van Devanter

FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSION v. NELSON BROTHERS BOND & MORTGAGE CO. (STATION WIBO) is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on May 8, 1933. The case was argued before the court on April 11, 1933.

In a 9-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower court. The case originated from the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction).

For a full list of cases decided in the 1930s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Hughes Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Economic Activity - Federal and some few state regulation of public utilities regulation: radio and television (cf. cable television)
  • Petitioner: Federal Communications Commission (including a predecessor, Federal Radio Commission)
  • Petitioner state: Unknown
  • Respondent type: Radio station
  • Respondent state: Unknown
  • Citation: 289 U.S. 266
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Cert
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: Charles Evans Hughes
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: Charles Evans Hughes

These data points were accessed from The Supreme Court Database, which also attempts to categorize the ideological direction of the court's ruling in each case. This case's ruling was categorized as liberal.

See also

External links

Footnotes