Aerco Broadcasting Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission

D.C. Circuit

Aerco Broadcasting Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission

51 F. App'x 23

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 21, 2002

DocketNo. 01-1466

StatusPublished

This text of 51 F. App'x 23 (Aerco Broadcasting Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aerco Broadcasting Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission, 51 F. App'x 23 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the Federal Communications Commission and on the briefs of the parties. It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the order of the Federal Communications Commission appealed from in this cause is hereby affirmed for the reasons stated in In re Carlos J. Lastra et al, 16 FCC Red 17268 (2001). Accordingly, appellant does not have standing to pursue its claim. Even if the Court were to rule in its favor, Aerco’s alleged injury could not be redressed as there is not an active license left to assign. While the Commission did take an inordinate amount of time to address the assignment application, this delay did not impact the trustee’s ability to return the station to the air. The subject license was automatically forfeited as a result of WTRA-TV’s inactivity over a 12-month period ending February 9, 1997. See 47 U.S.C. § 312(g).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the Federal Communications Commission and on the briefs of the parties. It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the order of the Federal Communications Commission appealed from in this cause is hereby affirmed for the reasons stated in In re Carlos J. Lastra et al, 16 FCC Red 17268 (2001). Accordingly, appellant does not have standing to pursue its claim. Even if the Court were to rule in its favor, Aerco’s alleged injury could not be redressed as there is not an active license left to assign. While the Commission did take an inordinate amount of time to address the assignment application, this delay did not impact the trustee’s ability to return the station to the air. The subject license was automatically forfeited as a result of WTRA-TV’s inactivity over a 12-month period ending February 9, 1997. See 47 U.S.C. § 312(g).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 F. App'x 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aerco-broadcasting-corp-v-federal-communications-commission-cadc-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack