Mid-Florida Radio Corporation, Mid-Florida Television Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, Telrad, Inc., Intervenor

D.C. Circuit

Mid-Florida Radio Corporation, Mid-Florida Television Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, Telrad, Inc., Intervenor

248 F.2d 755, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 342, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3866

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 17, 1957

Docket13835_1

StatusPublished

This text of 248 F.2d 755 (Mid-Florida Radio Corporation, Mid-Florida Television Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, Telrad, 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

Mid-Florida Radio Corporation, Mid-Florida Television Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, Telrad, Inc., Intervenor, 248 F.2d 755, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 342, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3866 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question here, as it was in Federal Broadcasting System, Inc., v. F. C. C., 99 U.S.App.D.C. 320, at page 323, 239 F.2d 941, at page 944, is whether we should set aside the Commission’s order made under section 309(c) of the Communications Act. 1 The order leaves in *756 effect the grant by the Commission, without a hearing, of intervenor’s application to modify its construction permit for a television station on Channel 2, Daytona Beach, Florida, notwithstanding appellant had duly protested the grant and a hearing and decision on the protest were pending.

The appeal of Mid-Florida Television Corp. will be dismissed for lack of standing. Mansfield Journal Co. v. F. C. C., 84 U.S.App.D.C. 341, 173 F.2d 646; KFAB Broadcasting Co. v. F. C. C., 85 U.S.App.D.C. 160, 177 F.2d 40.

On the appeal of Mid-Florida Radio Corp. we will affirm, being of the opinion that the action of the Commission was within its authority under, and was taken in a manner which complies with, section 309(c).

It is so ordered.

1

. 48 Stat. 1085 (1934), as amended 47 U.S.C. § 309(c) (Supp. IV, 1957), 47 U.S.C.A. § 309(c).

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

PER CURIAM.

The question here, as it was in Federal Broadcasting System, Inc., v. F. C. C., 99 U.S.App.D.C. 320, at page 323, 239 F.2d 941, at page 944, is whether we should set aside the Commission’s order made under section 309(c) of the Communications Act. 1 The order leaves in *756 effect the grant by the Commission, without a hearing, of intervenor’s application to modify its construction permit for a television station on Channel 2, Daytona Beach, Florida, notwithstanding appellant had duly protested the grant and a hearing and decision on the protest were pending.

The appeal of Mid-Florida Television Corp. will be dismissed for lack of standing. Mansfield Journal Co. v. F. C. C., 84 U.S.App.D.C. 341, 173 F.2d 646; KFAB Broadcasting Co. v. F. C. C., 85 U.S.App.D.C. 160, 177 F.2d 40.

On the appeal of Mid-Florida Radio Corp. we will affirm, being of the opinion that the action of the Commission was within its authority under, and was taken in a manner which complies with, section 309(c).

It is so ordered.

1

. 48 Stat. 1085 (1934), as amended 47 U.S.C. § 309(c) (Supp. IV, 1957), 47 U.S.C.A. § 309(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 F.2d 755, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 342, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mid-florida-radio-corporation-mid-florida-television-corporation-v-cadc-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack