WORZ, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision. The 6 that cite it most often are listed here.
- City of Angels Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Fidelity Television, Inc., Rko General, Inc., Intervenors (D.C. Cir. 1984)
- Worz, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Mid-Florida Television Corporation, Intervenor (D.C. Cir. 1963)
- Consolidated Nine, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (D.C. Cir. 1968)
- Worz, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Mid-Florida Television Corporation, Intervenor (D.C. Cir. 1965)
- TV 9, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (D.C. Cir. 1973)
- Worz, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Mid-Florida Television Corporation, Intervenor (D.C. Cir. 1959)
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
WORZ, INC.,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL.
Supreme Court of United States.
Eliot C. Lovett for petitioner.
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen, Charles H. Weston, John L. Fitzgerald and Richard A. Solomon for the Federal Communications Commission. respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. In view of the representations in the Solicitor General's brief on pages 4 and 5. concerning testimony given before the Subcommittee on Legislative Oversight of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce subsequent to the decision by the Court of Appeals in this case, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for such action as it may deem appropriate.
MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissent. The matters referred to by the Court were not presented in the Court of Appeals and are not presented by this petition. Agreeing with the Solicitor General that denial *56 of the petition for writ of certiorari would not foreclose appropriate consideration thereof by the Court of Appeals, we see no reason for vacating the Court of Appeals' judgment and, therefore, dissent from this disposition of the matter by the Court.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.