William H. Hernstadt v. Federal Communications Comm'n

919 F.2d 182, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 21430, 1990 WL 194241
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedDecember 5, 1990
Docket90-1039
StatusUnpublished

This text of 919 F.2d 182 (William H. Hernstadt v. Federal Communications Comm'n) 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
William H. Hernstadt v. Federal Communications Comm'n, 919 F.2d 182, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 21430, 1990 WL 194241 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

Opinion

919 F.2d 182

287 U.S.App.D.C. 73

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
William H. HERNSTADT, et al., Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N, Appellee.

No. 90-1039.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 5, 1990.

Before MIKVA, STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS and CLARENCE THOMAS, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This case was considered on appeal from the Federal Communications Commission, Valley Broadcasting Co., 4 F.C.C. Rcd. 2611 (Rev.Bd.1989), review denied, 5 F.C.C. Rcd. 499 (1990), and on the briefs filed by the parties and arguments by counsel. Finding that the issues presented occasion no need for a published opinion, see D.C.Cir. Rule 14(c), we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Review Board's resolution of the underlying factual issues and its renewal of the intervenor's broadcast license. See Central Florida Enterprises, Inc. v. FCC, 683 F.2d 503 (D.C.Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1084 (1983). It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Commission's decision is affirmed.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir. Rule 15.

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

Related

United States v. Rainey (Theresa)
919 F.2d 182 (D.C. Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
919 F.2d 182, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 21430, 1990 WL 194241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-h-hernstadt-v-federal-communications-commn-cadc-1990.