Sangamon Valley Television Corp. v. United States, 358 U.S. 49 (1958). · Go Syfert
Search
Sangamon Valley Television Corp. v. United States, 358 U.S. 49 (1958). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
53 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: City of Angels Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Fidelity Television, Inc., Rko General, Inc., Intervenors (cadc, 1984-09-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1958 1992 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see" City of Angels Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Fidelity Television, Inc., Rko General, Inc., Intervenors (6×)
D.C. Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See SVTC v. United States, 358 U.S. 49 , 79 S.Ct. 94 , 3 L.Ed.2d 47 (1958) (per curiam), on remand, 269 F.2d 221 (D.C.Cir.1959).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
SANGAMON VALLEY TELEVISION CORP.
v.
UNITED STATES Et Al.
235.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 20, 1958.
358 U.S. 49
D. M. Patrick and E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr. for petitioner., Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen, Warren E. Baker and Richard A. Solomon for the United States and the Federal Communications Commission, respondents., Monroe Oppenheimer and James H. Heller for the Signal Hill Telecasting Corporation, respondent.', James A. McKenna, Jr. and Vernon L. Wilkinson for the American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., et al., respondents.
Clark.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is' granted. In view of the representations in the Solicitor General’s brief on pages 7 and 8, concerning testimony given before the Subcommittee of Legislative Oversight of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce subsequent to the decision by the Court of Appeals in this case, the[*50] judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for such action as it may deem appropriate.

Dissent

Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan

dissent in the above cases.* The matters referred to by the Court were not presented in the Court of Appeals and are not presented by these petitions. Agreeing with the Solicitor General that denial of the petitions for writs of certiorari would not foreclose appropriate consideration thereof by the Court of Appeals, we see no reason for vacating the Court of Appeals’ judgments and, therefore, dissent from this disposition of the matter by the Court.

[Note: This dissent applies also to No. 242, WIRL Television Corp. v. United States et al., post, p. 51.]