Court Opinion

ID: 9449658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:18:17.274274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:55.671719
License: Public Domain

DANAHER, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
WORZ, Inc. seeking a rehearing en banc, has attacked this court’s opinion of July 5, 1963, because of its alleged failure to provide adequate guidance to the Commission as it reconsiders on remand “all matters” to be presented. The Commission in its opposition expresses its view that “the court’s opinion makes clear that it accepted the Commission’s finding,1 and rejected appellant’s view of the record.” Any such limited conclusion falls so far short of my interpretation of what this court was saying, I feel impelled to be specific as to why I joined in the opinion.
First, we accepted the Commission’s majority conclusion that upon reconsideration neither Mid-Florida nor WORZ is to be deemed automatically disqualified, importantly because the Commission and the parties had not, in the day and time of it, had the benefit of the views expressed in the cases cited in footnote 1 of our opinion.
Next, we rejected the majority Commission recommendation that new consideration be merely “on the basis of *621the existing record,” “with no further hearing contemplated and with no demerit to Mid-Florida by reason of the events which came to light and resulted in the remand.” (majority opinion p. 619.) Instead, we specified that the Commission in its decisions “on all matters,” (and there were many), shall review and consider the record which “shall include also all proceedings had upon the [previous], remand of the case by this court.” 2
By “all matters,” we intended, inter alia, to include: (1) a determination as to whether or not to reopen the record and to permit the filing of new applications and their consideration upon a new record3; (2) in making that decision, the reassessment by the Commission of the qualifications of both Mid-Florida and WORZ, Inc.; (3) that in reappraising such qualifications of the parties named, the Commission should weigh the serious question as to the character of WORZ’s principals; at the same time, the Commission should weigh the effect of Mid-Florida’s acceptance of whatever deceptive activities Roth had engaged in, as found by the Commission, at a time when he was secretary of and a stock subscriber in the Mid-Florida Corporation, and also show upon the record what effect the Commission would give to Roth’s conduct and to Dial’s ex parte activities in behalf of Mid-Florida at a time when he was acting as its attorney; in short, even if the Commission, contrary to its hearing examiner, could find that Mid-Florida’s principals at the time did not know of such activities, whether or not Mid-Florida should be permitted to receive and retain the benefits, without being accorded the detriment, of the misconduct of its agents; (4) a decision by the Commission after new oral argument on all aspects of all matters, whether or not a new public interest determination should be ordered4 since the record is so stale; and, finally, if so, acceptance of new applications from new untarnished applicants should not require excluding the present parties from participation in the reopened proceedings.
Our opinion in my understanding of it said at least this much, quite enough to enable the Commission to act accordingly. I vote against rehearing en banc.

. The Commission’s memorandum thus interprets our opinion to say only that the record supports “the Commission’s finding that the principals of Mid-Florida Television Corporation were not aware of and did not ratify certain eco parte presentations [sic] made by one William H. Dial.”
We said more. We left open to the Commission to decide, in the first instance, whether Mid-Florida could insulate itself by unawarenoss from the consequences of improper activities expended in its behalf by its attorney.

. We noted (majority opinion p. 620) that there were revelations of situations prior to our 1958 remand and more recent developments which might point to the need for a new public interest determination as to what licensee should be permitted to operate on Channel 9, Orlando.

. Cf. Sangamon Valley Television Corp. v. United States, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 113, 294 F.2d 742 (1961).