International Broadcasting Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, Ktbs, Inc., Intervenor

D.C. Circuit

International Broadcasting Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, Ktbs, Inc., Intervenor

237 F.2d 205

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 5, 1956

Docket12749

StatusPublished

This text of 237 F.2d 205 (International Broadcasting Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, Ktbs, 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

International Broadcasting Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, Ktbs, Inc., Intervenor, 237 F.2d 205 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

' PER CURIAM.

Appellant and intervenor are mutually exclusive applicants for a television license in Shreveport, Louisiana. After comparative hearing, the .Commission concluded the applicants were equal “in most respects,” and based the award to intervenor on its “clear superiority” in two areas: management-ownership integration, and diversification of control of the media of mass communication.

Appellant contends we should reverse the award because the Commission committed procedural errors amounting to a denial of due process and because it decided incorrectly on the merits. We find no denial of due process, nor can we say that the award was unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.

Affirmed.

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

' PER CURIAM.

Appellant and intervenor are mutually exclusive applicants for a television license in Shreveport, Louisiana. After comparative hearing, the .Commission concluded the applicants were equal “in most respects,” and based the award to intervenor on its “clear superiority” in two areas: management-ownership integration, and diversification of control of the media of mass communication.

Appellant contends we should reverse the award because the Commission committed procedural errors amounting to a denial of due process and because it decided incorrectly on the merits. We find no denial of due process, nor can we say that the award was unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 F.2d 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-broadcasting-corporation-v-federal-communications-cadc-1956.