Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

269 F.2d 226

Docket No. 14901.

Capital City Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued March 9, 1959.

Decided May 21, 1959.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1959-05-21

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1960

4 federal appellate ·

7 counsel of record

Applies 47 U.S.C. § 309

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1959-05-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. Burton K. Wheeler, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Edward K. Wheeler and Mrs. Fanney N. Litvin, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.

¶2Mr. Jerry M. Hamovit, Counsel, F.C. C., with whom Messrs. John L. Fitzgerald, Gen. Counsel, F.C.C., and Max D. Paglin, Asst. Gen. Counsel, F.C.C., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Richard A. Solomon, Asst. Gen. Counsel, F.C.C., at the time the record was filed, and Mr. John J. O’Malley, Jr., Counsel, F.C.C., also entered appearances for appellee.

¶3Mr. E. Stratford Smith, with whom Mr. John P. Cole, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for intervenor Helena TV, Inc.

¶4Mr. Jeremiah Courtney, with whom Mr. Arthur Blooston, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for intervenor James G. Edmiston, d/b/a Montana Microwave.

¶5Messrs. Richard H. Strodel and Burton K. Wheeler, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for intervenor Cory-Dullum Post No. 10010, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, East Helena, Montana.

¶6Messrs. E. Stratford Smith and John P. Cole, Jr., Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of Mesa Microwave, Inc., and Carter Mountain Transmission Corp., as amici curiae.

¶7*227Mrs. Fanney N. Litvin, Washington, D. C., filed an appearance for Helena Taxpayers League and Helena Valley Farm Bureau et al., as amici curiae.

¶8Before Ebgerton, Wilbur K. Miller, and Danaher, Circuit Judges.

¶9PER CURIAM.

¶10In our opinion the Federal Communications Commission erred in deciding that a “protest” filed by appellant did not meet the requirements of § 309(c) of the Communications Act, 70 Stat. 3, 47 U.S.C.A. § 309(c), and in dismissing the protest. The order of dismissal is vacated and the case is remanded to the Commission with instructions to proceed in accordance with § 309(c).

¶11Vacated and remanded.

/269/f2d/226 · .json · Public domain