Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station, Inc.

Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
68 Cong. Rec. 215, 69th Cong. (2d. Sess. 1926)


Facts

The Chicago Daily Tribune (Tribune) (plaintiff) owned a newspaper and a radio station. The station provided daily programs to an audience exceeding 500,000, located primarily within the City of Chicago. In December 1925, the Tribune began to broadcast on a wavelength of 302.8 meters. No other station in Chicago or Illinois used a wavelength that was sufficiently close to the Tribune’s wavelength to interfere with the Tribune’s programs. In September 1926, a competing station changed its wavelength to a frequency that either matched or was less than 50 kilocycles removed from the Tribune’s wavelength. The competing station was operated by the Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station, Inc., the Coyne Electrical School, Inc., and a Chicago resident named Guyon (broadcasters) (defendants). The Tribune sought to enjoin the broadcasters from operating their station on the Tribune’s wavelength. A lower court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the broadcasters from broadcasting on either the Tribune’s wavelength or a wavelength so close that it interfered with the Tribune’s radio programs. The broadcasters filed a motion to dissolve the order. The Tribune asserted that it had a right to the wavelength, because: (1) the Tribune had used the wavelength for a considerable length of time, (2) the Tribune had spent a considerable amount of money to develop the station, (3) the public associated the wavelength with the Tribune, and (4) the station had a large following. The Tribune also claimed that the competing broadcast would injure its newspaper. The broadcasters asserted that a wavelength cannot be privately controlled and that there was no interference with the Tribune’s program, because the competing station was removed from the Tribune’s wavelength by 40 kilocycles.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 218,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.