Pike Fam. Broad., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 44 F.3d 1031 (D.C. Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Pike Fam. Broad., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 44 F.3d 1031 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
28 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mercer David Grayson v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. Ronald L. Braley v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. Tony M. Arrington v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. Ricky D. Sallee v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. James L. Steadman v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. John D. Thompson v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. Obediah Sconiers, Movants, Carl Helton, Charles W. Kempton, James E. Taylor, Bob Williams, David Jack Wright v. K Mart Corporation (ca11, 1996-04-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Mercer David Grayson v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. Ronald L. Braley v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. Tony M. Arrington v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. Ricky D. Sallee v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. James L. Steadman v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. John D. Thompson v. K Mart Corporation, Cross-Appellee. Obediah Sconiers, Movants, Carl Helton, Charles W. Kempton, James E. Taylor, Bob Williams, David Jack Wright v. K Mart Corporation
11th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Burns v. Long, 44 F.3d 1031 (Table), 1994 WL 709329 , * 3 (D.C.Cir.1994); Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167 , 189 n. 56 (D.C.Cir.1977) ("[I]n the absence of a showing that [class] certification affected the 'substantial rights of the parties,' Rule 61, Fed.R.Civ.P., it is doubtful that reversal of certification on appeal would ever be appropriate"), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916 , 98 S.Ct. 3146 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 (1978). 67 Because the plaintiffs' substantial allegations and evidence, portions of which we have detailed above, adequately support Judge Shoob's § 216(b) ruling, and because K Mart …
discussed Cited "see" Grayson v. K Mart Corp.
11th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Burns v. Long, 44 F.3d 1031 (Table), 1994 WL 709329 , *3 (D.C.Cir.1994); Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167 , 189 n. 56 (D.C.Cir.1977) (“[I]n the absence of a showing that [class] certification affected the ‘substantial rights of the parties,’ Rule 61, Fed.R.Civ.P., it is doubtful that reversal of certification on appeal would ever be appropriate”), cert. de nied, 438 U.S. 916 , 98 S.Ct. 3146 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 (1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Pike Family Broadcasting, Inc.
v.
Federal Communications Commission
93-1285.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Nov 21, 1994.
44 F.3d 1031
Unpublished

44 F.3d 1031

310 U.S.App.D.C. 142

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
PIKE FAMILY BROADCASTING, INC., Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 93-1285.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1994.

Before: SENTELLE, HENDERSON, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

1

This cause came to be heard on an appeal from an order of the Federal Communications Commission, and was briefed and argued by counsel. The issues have been accorded full consideration by the Court and occasion no need for a published opinion. See D.C.Cir.Rule 36(b). On consideration thereof, it is

2

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the order of the Federal Communications Commission is hereby affirmed, for substantially the reasons set forth in the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 F.C.C. Rcd 4250 (1992), and the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 F.C.C. Rcd 5552 (1991). Under this Court's decision in Malkan FM Associates v. FCC, 935 F.2d 1313 (D.C.Cir.1991), the Commission acted reasonably in rejecting the application of Pike Family Broadcasting ("Pike") for an FM construction permit and in denying Pike's petition for leave to amend that application to bring its transmitter height into compliance with the terms of a 1972 treaty with Mexico. Malkan continues to govern this issue, notwithstanding the error that existed in the Commission's regulations from 1989 to 1991 regarding the proper transmitter height. That error was not made until over two years after Pike filed its application, and in any event, it does not affect our view that Malkan controls the disposition of this appeal. The Commission also acted reasonably in rejecting Pike's request that the Commission notify Mexico of the proposed transmitter height, on Pike's theory that if Mexico did not object, the Commission then could accept the Pike application. The Commission has satisfactorily distinguished its two uses of a similar notification procedure cited by Appellant, once with respect to a substantively different provision of a treaty with Canada, and once under the Mexico treaty on behalf of all the applicants at Ludlow, California.

3

The clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 41.