QUINCY CABLE TV, INC. v. F.C.C.

No. 83-1283.

730 F.2d 1549 (1984)

QUINCY CABLE TV, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, KHQ, Incorporated, Spokane Television, Inc., King Broadcasting Company, Association of Independent Television Stations, National Association of Broadcasters, Town of Quincy, Washington, Intervenors.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Decided March 30, 1984.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

John P. Cole, Jr., Washington, D.C., with whom David M. Silverman, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner.

Gregory M. Christopher, Counsel, F.C.C., Washington, D.C., with whom Bruce E. Fein, Gen. Counsel, Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate Gen. Counsel, F.C.C. and J. Paul McGrath, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert B. Nicholson and Margaret G. Halpern, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for respondents.

Michael D. Berg, Washington, D.C., with whom Erwin Krasnow for National Association of Broadcasters, Washington, D.C., Arthur Stambler for Spokane Television, Inc., Edward W. Hummers, Jr. and David G. Rozzelle, Washington, D.C., for King Broadcasting Co. were on the joint brief, for intervenors.

R. Russell Eagan, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for intervenor, KHQ, Inc.

J. Laurent Scharff, Jack N. Goodman and James M. Smith, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for intervenor, Association of Independent Television Stations, Inc.

Lewis J. Papers, Lawrence A. Horn, Nancy H. Hendry and Eric H. Smith, Washington, D.C., were on the joint brief for intervenors, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, et al.

Before WRIGHT, WILKEY and BORK, Circuit Judges.


Opinion PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM:

This case is a petition for review of orders of the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC") requiring Quincy Cable T.V., Inc., to carry the signals of three commercial broadcast stations over Quincy Cable's cable television system. Quincy Cable contends that the FCC's orders violate the first amendment of the Constitution and are an unconstitutional taking of private property...

NEVER MISS A DECISION. START YOUR SUBSCRIPTION.

Uncompromising quality. Enduring impact.
Your support ensures a bright future for independent legal reporting.

As you are aware we have offered this as a free subscription over the past years and we have now made it a paid service.Look forward to your continued patronage.

GET STARTED


OR

Read it with your Leagle account.
Sign in to continue


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