Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

565 F.2d 699

Docket No. 76-1570.

United Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued June 14, 1977. Decided July 8, 1977. Rehearing Denied Aug. 8, 1977.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1977-07-08

3 counsel of record

Relies on National Ass'n of Regional Councils v. Costle

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1977-07-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably Military Audit Project v. Casey (1981), Goland v. Central Intelligence Agency (1978)

25 federal appellate · 9 district ·

27019771980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

C. Grey Pash, Jr., Counsel, F. C. C., Washington, D. C., with whom Werner K. Hartenberger, Gen. Counsel, and Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate Gen. Counsel, F. C. C., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee. Sheldon M. Guttmann, Counsel, F. C. C., Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Monroe Oppenheimer, Washington, D. C., for intervenor.

Peter Tannenwald, Washington, D. C., for appellant. E. Stratford Smith, Vincent A. Pepper, David C. Jatlow, Thomas Schattenfield and David F. Tillotson, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant. Harry M. Plotkin, Theodore D. Frank and Eric L. Bernthal, Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellant.

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, ROBINSON, Circuit Judge, and RONALD N. DAVIES,* United States Senior District Judge for the District of North Dakota.

Opinion PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

The only substantial issue is whether the Commission's decision to refuse renewal to petitioner was a proper one. The Commission's Order, United Television Co., Inc., 55 F.C.C.2d 416, 422, 423, 425 (1975), states that each of several independent reasons called for appellant's disqualification, including breach of the Commission's rules of technical operation. In our view, the long history of persistent violations of those rules was a sufficient reason for disqualification. The Commission's decision is therefore affirmed on the basis of its discussion of this issue, and we reach no other question tendered by this appeal.

*

Sitting by designation pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C. § 294(d)

/565/f2d/699 · .json · Public domain