SANGAMON VALLEY TELEVISION CORP. v. UNITED STATES

No. 13992.

255 F.2d 191 (1958)

SANGAMON VALLEY TELEVISION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America and Federal Communications Commission, Respondents. American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., WMAY-TV, Inc., Signal Hill Telecasting Corporation, Plains Television Corporation, Intervenors.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Decided May 1, 1958.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mr. Stanley S. Harris, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. D. M. Patrick and Lester Cohen, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for petitioner.

Mr. John J. O'Malley, Jr., Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, with whom Messrs. Warren E. Baker, Gen. Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, Richard A. Solomon, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, and Daniel M. Friedman, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for respondents.

Mr. Vernon L. Wilkinson, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. James A. McKenna, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the briefs, submitted on the briefs for intervenors American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., and Plains Television Corp.

Mr. Stanley S. Neustadt, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Marcus Cohn and Paul Dobin, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, submitted on the brief for intervenor WMAY-TV, Inc.

Messrs. Monroe Oppenheimer, William P. Bernton and James H. Heller, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for intervenor Signal Hill Telecasting Corp. Abraham J. Harris, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for intervenor Signal Hill Telecasting Corp.

Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and FAHY and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.


PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks review of a rule-making decision of the Federal Communications Commission resulting in amendment of the Table of Television Channel Assignment. The amendment assigned VHF Channel 2, Springfield, Illinois, to St. Louis, Missouri, and Terre Haute, Indiana, accompanied with the assignment of UHF Channels 26 and 36 to Springfield.

Petitioner, applicant for Channel 2 at Springfield, attacks the decision as illegal because inconsistent...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases