Granik v. Federal Communications Commission
Granik v. Federal Communications Commission
Opinion of the Court
In Granik v. FCC, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 247, 234 F.2d 682, we held, for reasons there set forth, that appellants had standing to protest under section 309(c) and to petition for reconsideration under section 405 of the Communications Act
Thereafter, and while these appeals were pending, the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court of Volusia County in a per curiam opinion, but “without prejudice to any action at law, if any, which appellants may have against appellee W. Wright Esch.” Whatever judicial remedy, if any, may be available by reason of this without prejudice provision, there is now a final judicial determination that appellants have no such interest in the subject matter of the Commission proceedings as gave them standing under our earlier decision.
Since appellants no longer are “aggrieved” or “adversely affected” by the Commission’s orders, the appeals must be
Dismissed.
. 66 Stat. 715-16, 720 (1952), as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(c), 405 (Supp. IV, 1957), 47 U.S.G.A. §§ 309(e), 405, amending 48 Stat. 1085, 1095 (1934).
. At the time of the grant Perry Kealty Company was known as W.C.O.A., Inc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.