Case ID: f2d_269/html/0226-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CAPITAL CITY TELEVISION, INC., Appellant, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee. Helena TV, Inc., James G. Edmiston, d/b/a Montana Microwave, Cory-Dullum Post No. 10010, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, East Helena, Montana, Intervenors.
    No. 14901.
    United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
    Argued March 9, 1959.
    Decided May 21, 1959.
    Mr. Burton K. Wheeler, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Edward K. Wheeler and Mrs. Fanney N. Litvin, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
    Mr. Jerry M. Hamovit, Counsel, F.C. C., with whom Messrs. John L. Fitzgerald, Gen. Counsel, F.C.C., and Max D. Paglin, Asst. Gen. Counsel, F.C.C., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Richard A. Solomon, Asst. Gen. Counsel, F.C.C., at the time the record was filed, and Mr. John J. O’Malley, Jr., Counsel, F.C.C., also entered appearances for appellee.
    Mr. E. Stratford Smith, with whom Mr. John P. Cole, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for intervenor Helena TV, Inc.
    Mr. Jeremiah Courtney, with whom Mr. Arthur Blooston, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for intervenor James G. Edmiston, d/b/a Montana Microwave.
    Messrs. Richard H. Strodel and Burton K. Wheeler, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for intervenor Cory-Dullum Post No. 10010, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, East Helena, Montana.
    Messrs. E. Stratford Smith and John P. Cole, Jr., Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of Mesa Microwave, Inc., and Carter Mountain Transmission Corp., as amici curiae.
    
      Mrs. Fanney N. Litvin, Washington, D. C., filed an appearance for Helena Taxpayers League and Helena Valley Farm Bureau et al., as amici curiae.
    Before Ebgerton, Wilbur K. Miller, and Danaher, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In our opinion the Federal Communications Commission erred in deciding that a “protest” filed by appellant did not meet the requirements of § 309(c) of the Communications Act, 70 Stat. 3, 47 U.S.C.A. § 309(c), and in dismissing the protest. The order of dismissal is vacated and the case is remanded to the Commission with instructions to proceed in accordance with § 309(c).

Vacated and remanded.