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

Capital City Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

Capital City Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided May 21, 1959
269 F.2d 226; 106 U.S. App. D.C. 35 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Burton K. Wheeler, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Edward K. Wheeler and Mrs. Fanney N. Litvin, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant., Mr. Jerry M. Hamovit, Counsel, F.C. C., with whom Messrs. John L. Fitzgerald, Gen. Counsel, F.C.C., and Max D. Paglin, Asst. Gen. Counsel, F.C.C., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Richard A. Solomon, Asst. Gen. Counsel, F.C.C., at the time the record was filed, and Mr. John J. O’Malley, Jr., Counsel, F.C.C., also entered appearances for appellee., Mr. E. Stratford Smith, with whom Mr. John P. Cole, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for intervenor Helena TV, Inc., Mr. Jeremiah Courtney, with whom Mr. Arthur Blooston, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for intervenor James G. Edmiston, d/b/a Montana Microwave., Messrs. Richard H. Strodel and Burton K. Wheeler, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for intervenor Cory-Dullum Post No. 10010, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, East Helena, Montana., Messrs. E. Stratford Smith and John P. Cole, Jr., Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of Mesa Microwave, Inc., and Carter Mountain Transmission Corp., as amici curiae., Mrs. Fanney N. Litvin, Washington, D. C., filed an appearance for Helena Taxpayers League and Helena Valley Farm Bureau et al., as amici curiae.

Capital City Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite 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.

In our opinion the Federal Communications Commission erred in deciding that a “protest” filed by appellant did not meet the requirements of § 309(c) of the Communications Act, 70 Stat. 3, 47 U.S.C.A. § 309(c), and in dismissing the protest. The order of dismissal is vacated and the case is remanded to the Commission with instructions to proceed in accordance with § 309(c).

Vacated and remanded.

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