Jump to content

User:NewEarthRevelation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Introduction

[edit]

Preferred Communications v. City of Los Angeles, 476 U.S. 488 (1986) was a case comprised of oral arguments heard before the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined, in a unanimous decision, that District Court Judge, (Hon.) Consuelo Marshall had performed a judgment that was "improper" when she dismissed the case prior to any trial, and without deposing a single witness. [1]

In the following arenas: Constitution, 1st Amendment, Landmark Supreme Court Cases,[2] Cable Television, City Corruption [3], and by proxy, the Global Internet accessed through ISPs many of them established as Cable Communication Companies, the case Preferred Communication v. City of Los Angeles is easily described as foundational.

U.S. District Court, the 9th Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States

[edit]

In 1983 the City of Los Angeles denied Preferred Communications Inc.. a franchise or license (including the opportunity to compete for one) to Carl and Clinton Galloway who had founded the firm Universal Cable Systems, Inc., ultimately named Preferred Communications Inc.. Preferred would file suit against the city to address tor redress this grievance. [4]

The case, originating in the aforementioned District Court, would reach the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who reversed Marshall. Subsequent to this reversal, Respondents (or, 'defendants' in the colloquial sense,) appealed to the Supreme Court who, reversing Marshall, found:

“The complaint should not have been dismissed. The activities which respondent seeks to engage in plainly implicates first amendment interests.”

And, furthermore affirmed:

Taking the allegations in the complaint as true, ...the well-pleaded facts of the complaint constitute a cognizable [first amendment ;violation.]"


According to the Judicial Code of Conduct [5]all federal and/or District Court Judges have a solemn obligation, having sworn an oath, "to dispense justice expediently, impartially, without fear or favor."

As Marshall dismissed the case under the pretense that claimants (or, colloquially, 'Plaintiffs') "failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." In doing so, she affirms (as a matter of fact and law) that "no set of facts can prove claimant's allegations as true."

The case originated in United States District Court for the Central District of California, [6] regarding which, it was definitively stated that the presiding District Judge had dismissed the complaint in a fashion that was improper. [7] Despite Judge Consuelo Marshall's refusal to award monetary damages, the award of nominal damages in addition to the reluctant if much delayed striking down of the "one area, one operator" policy exercised by the city, was considered to be a "preamble to breakup of local cable franchising" schemes which did not serve the public interest in the 1980s and 90s. [8]

Historical Context

[edit]

At the heart of the matter was the City's franchising scheme, which sold rights to provide cable service to the "highest bidder," [9]pursuant a city ordinance. The city maintained that the franchise for the South Central district was "non-exclusive" however proceeded to bar entry from new applicants, including Preferred Communications Inc. [10]

The First Amendment became relevant for according to plaintiffs, the ability to transmit ideas (through the cable medium) constituted speech, [11]and the right of way being denied belonged to the public, and not one, single, exclusive and private interest.[12]

The Rulings

[edit]

The Supreme Court and ultimately two lower courts found that:

  • 1) a city's right of way -- to the extent it constitutes a channel for speech -- may not be granted to one party exclusively, a policy known as "one area, one operator," [13] and
  • 2) the City of Los Angeles is required to act in accordance with the United States Constitution.[14]

The First Amendment component of the case, in addition to the ruling being the first of its kind make it, therefore, a Landmark and Civil Rights case.

Unanimous Reversals by 9 Justices and 3 Federal Judges

[edit]

Problematically, twelve federal judges disagreed. Unanimous reversals from a three judge panel in the 9th circuit (court of appeals) and nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States found her judgment to be "improper."

Once the jurists belonging to two high courts established the legitimacy and objective presence of a First Amendment violation (referring to the allegation) it was the lower court's responsibility to develop the record pursuant the mandate of the Supreme Court. [15]

The City of Los Angeles had conceivably deprived respondent Preferred Communication Inc., from exercising its rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America[16] when it refused Preferred access to the electric lines and poles on account that Preferred did not participate in an auction held by the city awarding such access to the "highest bidder."[17]

  1. ^ https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep476/usrep476488/usrep476488.pdf
  2. ^ Preferred Communications v. City of Los Angeles, 476 U.S. 488 (1986) https://www.justice.gov/osg/media/211851/dl?inline
  3. ^ Bishop Brookins’ Ties to Cable Franchise Detailed https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-03-25-mn-191-story.html
  4. ^ Hazlett, Thomas W. (1991-06-01). "Pain and Cable". Reason.com. Retrieved 2024-07-29.
  5. ^ "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | United States Courts". www.uscourts.gov. Retrieved 2024-07-27.
  6. ^ City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications (1986) | https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/city-of-los-angeles-v-preferred-communications/ | July 2024}}
  7. ^ Title VII—Employee Retirement Plans—Unequal Contribution Requirements as Constituting Unlawful Discrimination on the Basis of Sex—Manhart v. City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power, 553 F.2d 581 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. granted, 98 S. Ct. 51 (1977) |
  8. ^ Schildause, Sol. "Preamble to the Breakup of Local Cable Franchising".
  9. ^ City of Los Angeles: First Amendment Rights and Cable Television Franchising Pro https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2789&context=mlr}}
  10. ^ The First Amendment and Cable television: First Amendment and Cablevision: Preferred Communications, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles [url=https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1765&context=tlr Digital Commons: Tulsa Law Review]
  11. ^ City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, 1986, retrieved 22 July 2024
  12. ^ "Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, 476 U.S. 488 (1986)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-07-22.
  13. ^ City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, 1986, retrieved 22 July 2024
  14. ^ Schildause, Sol; Preferred Communications, Inc. v City of Los Angeles First Amendment Rights and Cable Television Franchising url=https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2789&context=mlr
  15. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NewEarthRevelation&action=edit
  16. ^ "Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, 476 U.S. 488 (1986)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-07-22.
  17. ^ "CITY OF LOS ANGELES and Department of Water and Power, Petitioners v. PREFERRED COMMUNICATIONS, INC". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2024-07-22.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NewEarthRevelation&oldid=1237281081"