Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. William J. Dempsey, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. William C. Koplovitz and Harry J. Ockershausen, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Edward W. Hautanen, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, with whom Messrs. Warren E. Baker, Gen. Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, and J. Smith Henley and Richard A. Solomon, Asst. Gen. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Russell Rowell, Washington, D.C., for intervenor. Messrs. Frank Roberson and Frank U. Fletcher, Washington, D.C., also entered appearances for intervenor.
Judges
  • David L. Bazelon
  • Charles Fahy
  • George Thomas Washington
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. William J. Dempsey, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. William C. Koplovitz and Harry J. Ockershausen, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Edward W. Hautanen, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, with whom Messrs. Warren E. Baker, Gen. Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, and J. Smith Henley and Richard A. Solomon, Asst. Gen. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Russell Rowell, Washington, D.C., for intervenor. Messrs. Frank Roberson and Frank U. Fletcher, Washington, D.C., also entered appearances for intervenor.
Judges
  • David L. Bazelon
  • Charles Fahy
  • George Thomas Washington
See more information ...
Smart Summary

INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION, Appellant, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee, KTBS, Inc., Inter

PER CURIAM.

Appellant and intervenor are mutually exclusive applicants for a television license in Shreveport, Louisiana. After comparative hearing, the Commission concluded the applicants were equal "in most respects," and based the award to intervenor on its "clear superiority" in two areas: management-ownership integration, and diversification of control of the media of mass communication.

Appellant contends we should reverse the award because the Commission committed procedural errors amounting to a denial of due process and because it decided incorrectly on the merits. We find no denial of due process, nor can we say that the award was unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

INTERNATIONAL BROADCAST. v. FED. COM. COM'N
(May 3, 1956)