U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1959

Bakersfield Broadcasting Co. v. United States

Bakersfield Broadcasting Co. v. United States
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided May 14, 1959 · Burger, Edgerton, Washington
266 F.2d 697; 105 U.S. App. D.C. 293 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Ben C. Fisher, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Charles V. Wayland, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioner., Mr. Charles F. Duvall, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for petitioner., Mr. Jerry M. Hamovit, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, with whom Messrs. John L. Fitzgerald, Gen. Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, Richard A. Solomon, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, at the time brief was filed, Mrs. Ruth V. Reel, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, and Mr. Henry Geller, Counsel, Department of Justice, were on the brief, for respondents., Mr. Daniel M. Friedman, Atty., Dept, of Justice, also entered an appearance for respondents., Mr. Herbert E. Forrest, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Vincent B. Welch, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for intervenor.

Bakersfield Broadcasting Co. v. United States

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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 of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner complains of orders of the Federal Communications Commission assigning certain UHF channels to Bakersfield, California, and of the Commission’s failure to take action in certain other pending matters. We find no error. On the authority of Jacksonville Journal Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 1957, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 12, 246 F.2d 699, a case presenting an essentially similar situation, the orders of the Commission will be

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.