City Cabs, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Best Cabs, Inc., Intervenor

D.C. Circuit

City Cabs, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Best Cabs, Inc., Intervenor

275 F.2d 165, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 136, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5557

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 21, 1960

Docket15094

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 275 F.2d 165 (City Cabs, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Best Cabs, Inc., Intervenor) 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

City Cabs, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Best Cabs, Inc., Intervenor, 275 F.2d 165, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 136, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5557 (D.C. Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

BASTIAN, Circuit Judge.

City Cabs, Inc., has appealed from a decision and order of the Federal Communications Commission adopted March 25, 1959, released March 27, 1959, affirming a grant, dated May 31, 1957, of the application of Best Cabs, Inc., intervenor herein, for a construction permit and license in the Taxicab Radio Service, granting the petition of Best Cabs for leave to amend its application originally filed December 26, 1957, and denying the protest of City Cabs, Inc., against the grant of the application of Best Cabs.

The decision affirming the May 31, 1957 grant was contingent on the filing of an affidavit by Best Cabs supplying data missing from its original application, such as frequency, emission, power and other information specified in paragraph 5 of the Commission’s decision, and affirmatively reciting facts sufficient to warrant a finding and conclusion of eligibility under Section 16.401(a) (1) of the Commission’s Rules. 1

Appellant first urges that the Commission erred in permitting the in *166 tervenor’s application to be validated by a nunc pro tunc amendment. We think that under the decision of this court in Johnston Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Comm’n, 1949, 85 U.S. App.D.C. 40, 175 F.2d 351, the action of the Commission in this regard was within its power and was proper.

Appellant further urges that the Commission erred in determining that certain misrepresentations in intervenor’s application, inserted by an unauthorized person, did not constitute a willful, and deliberate misrepresentation by the intervenor and that the intervenor was not guilty of a willful and knowing concealment of material facts.

We think that the finding of the Commission that Best Cabs did not commit acts of deliberate and willful misrepresentation and did not deliberately conceal the facts of such misrepresentation is supported by the record as a whole.

Finding no reason to disturb the decision of the Commission, that decision is

-Affirmed.

1

. This affidavit was filed and deemed by the Commission a satisfactory compliance with the directions of the Commission.

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

BASTIAN, Circuit Judge.

City Cabs, Inc., has appealed from a decision and order of the Federal Communications Commission adopted March 25, 1959, released March 27, 1959, affirming a grant, dated May 31, 1957, of the application of Best Cabs, Inc., intervenor herein, for a construction permit and license in the Taxicab Radio Service, granting the petition of Best Cabs for leave to amend its application originally filed December 26, 1957, and denying the protest of City Cabs, Inc., against the grant of the application of Best Cabs.

The decision affirming the May 31, 1957 grant was contingent on the filing of an affidavit by Best Cabs supplying data missing from its original application, such as frequency, emission, power and other information specified in paragraph 5 of the Commission’s decision, and affirmatively reciting facts sufficient to warrant a finding and conclusion of eligibility under Section 16.401(a) (1) of the Commission’s Rules. 1

Appellant first urges that the Commission erred in permitting the in *166 tervenor’s application to be validated by a nunc pro tunc amendment. We think that under the decision of this court in Johnston Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Comm’n, 1949, 85 U.S. App.D.C. 40, 175 F.2d 351, the action of the Commission in this regard was within its power and was proper.

Appellant further urges that the Commission erred in determining that certain misrepresentations in intervenor’s application, inserted by an unauthorized person, did not constitute a willful, and deliberate misrepresentation by the intervenor and that the intervenor was not guilty of a willful and knowing concealment of material facts.

We think that the finding of the Commission that Best Cabs did not commit acts of deliberate and willful misrepresentation and did not deliberately conceal the facts of such misrepresentation is supported by the record as a whole.

Finding no reason to disturb the decision of the Commission, that decision is

-Affirmed.

1

. This affidavit was filed and deemed by the Commission a satisfactory compliance with the directions of the Commission.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 F.2d 165, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 136, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-cabs-inc-v-federal-communications-commission-best-cabs-inc-cadc-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack