We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
FEDERAL RADIO REGULATION— Continued
makeweights, and that the real bone of contention is the insistence by the Commission upon absolute authority to decide the rights of appli â– cants for permits without regard to previous findings or decisions made by it or by this court. ...
, . . In such a case petitioner ought not now to be put in any worse position than it occupied on the original hearing, and therefore ought not to be required any more now than originally to be put in hodgepodge with later applicants whose records were not made at the time of the previous hearing. On this state of facts, we are of opinion the Commission should rehear the application on the record and in the light of our opinion. We believe that this expression of our views on the subject will obviate the necessity of issuing the writ. If it becomes necessary for the protection of petitioner's rights, counsel may submit a proposed form of order within 30 days. Otherwise an order will be entered denying the petition for prohibition and mandamus."*
In another case, while the procedure followed by the applicant was somewhat different, the result was the same.f
Notwithstanding the Court's pronouncements, the Commission has insisted on its right to consider other applications in its later proceedings. It finally became necessary for the Court to issue a writ of mandamus in one of the cases on May 24th.**
In a second case, the Court issued a writ of mandamus on June 30, 1939.ff At present writing the matter is likely to be presented to the Supreme Court by petitions for certiorari by the Commission.***
ASSIGNMENT-OF-LICENSE CASES. There is now pending before the court a casef f f involving the right of appeal under Section 402 (b) from
Pottsville Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C., April 3, 1939, not yet reported.
t McNinch et al. v. Heitmeyer, April 3, 1939, not yet reported. By reason of these and other decisions of the Court of Appeals, cited in the foregoing, it is now clear that the remedy by appeal under Section 402 (b) of the Act to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is exclusive, and that proceedings for injunction or mandamus against the Commission in the lower Court may not be maintained in matters embraced within the section.
**The Heitmeyer case, Part IV-p. 13. On motion of the Commission, the Court, on June 20th, suspended the writ for 10 days to permit the Commission to file a statement of grounds for opposition.
tt Courier-Post Publishing Co. v. F.C.C., not yet reported. In this case the application had been originally heard in competition with another application for the same facilities in the same town. The Commission had denied both applications. The other applicant had not appealed, so the decision of the Commission became final as to it and being a corporation, it was subsequently dissolved by surrender of its charter. Nevertheless, after the Court's decision the Commission set the successful appellant's application for hearing in a consolidated proceeding and on a comparative basis with the other applicant.
*** Petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court have frequently been filed by parties defeated in the Court of Appeals. No petition, however, has ever been granted in a radio case by the Court except in two early instances, where petitions were filed by the Commission, and in one of these the petition was later dismissed. General Electric Co. v. Federal Radio Commission, 281 U. S. 464; Federal Radio Commission v. Nelson Bros. Bond & Mortgage Co., 289 U. S. 266.
ttt Associated Broadcasters, Inc. v. F.C.C. See Part II, B.
972