U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1958

Edward C. White v. Federal Communications Commission, Wsm, Inc., Intervenor

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided February 27, 1958 · No. 14164 · Reed, Washington, Danaher

252 F.2d 856; 102 U.S. App. D.C. 292; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3790; 1958 WL 95248 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Edward C. White filed a brief pm se, and his ease was treated as submitted thereon., Mr. Mark E. Fields, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, with whom Messrs. Warren E. Baker, General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, and Richard A. Solomon, Assistant General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, were on the brief, submitted on the brief for appellee., Mr. R. Russell Eagan, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Reed T. Rollo, Washington, D. C„ was on the brief, submitted on the brief for intervenor.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Patricia Yvonne Smyly v. United States (5th Cir. 1961)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On April 18, 1957, intervenor WSM, Inc., applied to the Federal Communications Commission for permission to change the location of its television transmitter tower. On May 21, 1957, this application was granted. On June 18, appellant White filed a pleading entitled “Petition to Rehear,” alleging that persons — like himself — living near inter-venor’s new tower site would be endangered by the new tower, inasmuch as intervenor’s previous tower had collapsed with some loss of life. The Commission denied relief and appellant brought the case here.

Assuming for the purpose of this decision that appellant is a person “aggrieved or whose interests are adversely aifected,” 1 under both Section 405 and Section 402(b)(6) of the Communications Act, 2 we are satisfied, after review *857 ing the record, that the Commission did not err or abuse its discretion when it declined to revoke its grant of permission to intervener. The Commission’s order denying relief to appellant will therefore he

Affirmed.

. But compare Granik v. Federal Communications Commission, 1956, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 247, 234 F.2d 682, with Granik v. Federal Communications Commission, 1958, 102 U.S.App.D.C. —, 252 F.2d 822.

. 48 Stat. 1095, 1093 (1934), as amended, 47 U.S.C.A. §§ 405, 402(b) (6).

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.