WIBC, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

D.C. Circuit

WIBC, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

259 F.2d 941, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 126

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 16, 1958

DocketNos. 14035, 14231

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 259 F.2d 941 (WIBC, Inc. 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

WIBC, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 259 F.2d 941, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 126 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

These cases came on for consideration on the transcript of the record and were argued by counsel.

After consideration the Court is of the view that since Commissioner Craven’s vote was decisive in effecting the entry of the orders here complained of, he should not have voted without having heard oral argument, such argument having been requested and not clearly waived. See Bay State Beacon, Inc., 3 R.R. 1464 (1947); WBNX Broadcasting Co., 4 R.R. 205 (1947); 47 U.S.C.A. § 409(b) (1952). For this reason the Commission’s orders will be vacated, without prejudice to such proper steps as the Commission may desire to take to maintain uninterrupted television service to the public on Channel 13 in Indianapolis, through the intervenor or otherwise, pending final decision. The Commission should reset the case for oral argument. Any final order which may thereafter be entered may be brought before this Court for review in the usual manner in a new proceeding. Under the circumstances, and inasmuch as the question may not hereafter arise, the Court does not reach the question whether Commissioner Craven is disqualified to vote in this case, and expresses no opinion on the subject.

Accordingly, it is ordered by the Court that the orders of the Federal Communications Commission appealed from herein be, and they are hereby, vacated and that these cases be, and they are hereby, remanded to the Federal Communications Commission for further proceedings consistent with the views above expressed.

On Intervenor’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Decided September 25, 1958.

Before Edgerton, Chief Judge, and Prettyman, Wilbur K. Miller, Baze-lon, Fahy, Washington, Danaher, Bas-tían and Burger, Circuit Judges.

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

PER CURIAM.

These cases came on for consideration on the transcript of the record and were argued by counsel.

After consideration the Court is of the view that since Commissioner Craven’s vote was decisive in effecting the entry of the orders here complained of, he should not have voted without having heard oral argument, such argument having been requested and not clearly waived. See Bay State Beacon, Inc., 3 R.R. 1464 (1947); WBNX Broadcasting Co., 4 R.R. 205 (1947); 47 U.S.C.A. § 409(b) (1952). For this reason the Commission’s orders will be vacated, without prejudice to such proper steps as the Commission may desire to take to maintain uninterrupted television service to the public on Channel 13 in Indianapolis, through the intervenor or otherwise, pending final decision. The Commission should reset the case for oral argument. Any final order which may thereafter be entered may be brought before this Court for review in the usual manner in a new proceeding. Under the circumstances, and inasmuch as the question may not hereafter arise, the Court does not reach the question whether Commissioner Craven is disqualified to vote in this case, and expresses no opinion on the subject.

Accordingly, it is ordered by the Court that the orders of the Federal Communications Commission appealed from herein be, and they are hereby, vacated and that these cases be, and they are hereby, remanded to the Federal Communications Commission for further proceedings consistent with the views above expressed.

On Intervenor’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Decided September 25, 1958.

Before Edgerton, Chief Judge, and Prettyman, Wilbur K. Miller, Baze-lon, Fahy, Washington, Danaher, Bas-tían and Burger, Circuit Judges.

Greater Boston Television Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., a Massachusettscorporation, Intervenor. Whdh, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Greater Boston Televisioncorporation, a Massachusetts Corporation, Intervenor. Charles River Civic Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., Boston Broadcastersinc., Intervenors. Whdh, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Boston Broadcasters, Inc., Intervenor. Greater Boston Tv Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., Boston Broadcastersinc., Intervenors

444 F.2d 841 (D.C. Circuit, 1971)

Greater Boston Television Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission

444 F.2d 841 (D.C. Circuit, 1970)

Braniff Airways, Incorporated v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Intervenor

379 F.2d 453 (D.C. Circuit, 1967)

Gearhart & Otis, Inc., Frederick D. Gearhart, Jr. And Edward v. Otis v. Securities and Exchange Commission and United States of America

348 F.2d 798 (D.C. Circuit, 1965)

T. J. Moss Tie Co. v. State Tax Commission

345 S.W.2d 191 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1961)

Feldman v. Board of Pharmacy of Dist. of Columbia

160 A.2d 100 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1960)

United States v. Seminole Nation

173 F. Supp. 784 (Court of Claims, 1959)

Wibc, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Crosley Broadcasting Corporation, Intervenor. Wibc, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Crosley Broadcasting Corporation, an Ohio Corporation, Intervenor

259 F.2d 941 (D.C. Circuit, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 F.2d 941, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wibc-inc-v-federal-communications-commission-cadc-1958.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack