TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Whitehurst v. Grimes

WHITEHURST v. GRIMES, Chief of Police, Et Al.

Whitehurst v. Grimes, 21 F.2d 787 (E.D. Ky. 1927)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Federal District Courts
Decided
September 17, 1927
Judges
Andrew M. J. Cochran
Citations
21 F.2d 7871927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1470

Opinion — Cochran

ANDREW M. J. COCHRAN, District Judge.

This suit is before me on defendants’ motion to dismiss the bill for want of equity and that it does not state facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff to the relief which he seeks.

The plaintiff is an amateur radio operator. He lives and operates an amateur radio station located in the city of Wilmore, a municipality of this state located in this district. This he has done since October, 1924. He has a license so to do from the United States. It was granted October 19,1925, for two years by tbo Secretary of Commerce, under the Act of August 13, .1912 (47 USCA §§ 51 — 60; Comp. St. §§ 10100-10109), and was extended Mareh 15, 1927, by the Federal Radio Commission, appointed under the Aet of February 23,1927 (47 USCA^ §§ 81-120), by General Order No. 1, until further orders therefrom. The designation of his station is 9 ALM.

On October 1, 1926, the defendant by its board of council passed an ordinance requiring all persons, firms, and corporation's operating a radio broadcasting station, either commercial or amateur, to pay a license tax therefor and providing a penalty for failure to do so. The tax provided-is not oil the property of tile radio operator, but on the business of radio broádeasting. Radio communications are all interstate. This- is so, though they may be intended only for intrastate transmission; and interstate transmission of such communications may be seriously affected by communications intended only for intrastate transmission. Such communications admit of and require a uniform system of regulation and control throughout the United States, and Congress has covered the field by appropriate legislation. It follows that the ordinance is void, as a regulation of interstate commerce.

The motion to dismiss is overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1942: 11947: 11949: 11951: 11957: 12000: 119422026peak 1942 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Presnell v. Leslie144 N.E.2d 381 (N.Y. 1957)
  2. Albuquerque Broadcasting Co. v. Bureau of Revenue184 P.2d 416 (N.M. 1947)
  3. Dorsky v. Brown51 So. 2d 360 (Ala. 1951)
  4. Beard, Collector v. Vinsonhaler221 S.W.2d 3 (Ark. 1949) · Dissent
  5. United States v. Betteridge43 F. Supp. 53 (N.D. Ohio 1942)
  6. United States v. Butterfield91 F. Supp. 2d 704 (D. Vt. 2000)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Butterfield91 F. Supp. 2d 704 (D. Vt. 2000)
  2. Presnell v. Leslie144 N.E.2d 381 (N.Y. 1957)
  3. Dorsky v. Brown51 So. 2d 360 (Ala. 1951)
  4. Beard, Collector v. Vinsonhaler221 S.W.2d 3 (Ark. 1949) · Dissent
  5. Albuquerque Broadcasting Co. v. Bureau of Revenue184 P.2d 416 (N.M. 1947)
  6. United States v. Betteridge43 F. Supp. 53 (N.D. Ohio 1942)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list