Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Southside Virginia Telecasting Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission

228 F.2d 644

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1955-12-29
Topic: general

PER CURIAM. The appellant and the intervenor each applied to the Federal Communications Commission for a construction permit for a television station in Petersburg, Virginia. After a comparative hearing the Commission denied the appellant’s application and granted the intervenor’s. We do not find that the Commission ignored factors that required consideration or acted arbitrarily in choosing between the applicants. Affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Southside Virginia Telecasting Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status: pending
Cited by: 1 opinion

SOUTHSIDE VIR. TELECASTING v. FED. COMMUN.,228 F.2d 644(D.C. Cir. 1955)

SOUTHSIDE VIRGINIA TELECASTING CORPORATION, Appellant, v. FEDERAL

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee, Petersburg Television Corporation,

Intervenor.

No. 12546.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued October 11, 1955.

Decided December 29, 1955.

Writ of Certiorari Denied March 26, 1956.

See 76 S.Ct. 546.

Messrs. Leonard H. Marks, Washington, D.C., and Paul Dobin, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Mr. Richard A. Solomon, Assistant General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, with whom Messrs. Warren E. Baker, General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, J. Smith Henley, Asst. General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, and Daniel R. Ohlbaum, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Stanley S. Neustadt, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, New York City, also entered an appearance for appellee.

Messrs. Paul A. Porter, Harry M. Plotkin and Reed Miller, Washington, D.C., filed a brief for intervenor. Mr. George Bunn, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for intervenor.

Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and WILBUR K. MILLER and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant and the intervenor each applied to the Federal Communications Commission for a construction permit for a television station in Petersburg, Virginia. After a comparative hearing the Commission denied the appellant's application and granted the intervenor's. We do not find that the Commission ignored factors that required consideration or acted arbitrarily in choosing between the applicants.

Affirmed.Page 645