47 C.F.R. § 1.227
Consolidations
The Commission, upon motion or upon its own motion, may, where such action will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice, consolidate in a hearing proceeding any cases that involve the same applicant or substantially the same issues, or that present conflicting claims.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1967–1987 · leading case: Satellite Broad. Co., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Associated Info. Servs. Corp., Intervenor, 824 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Satellite Broad. Co., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Associated Info. Servs. Corp., Intervenor, 824 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “227(b)(4) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.227 (b)(4) (1983), allowed, inter alia, competing applications in the private radio services to be consolidated for hearing with prior applications if the competing applications were “tendered for filing” within “60 days after…”
Orange Park Florida T v. Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Clay Television, Inc., Intervenor, 811 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “See 47 C.F.R. § 1.227 (b)(1) (1984). 7 . See Initial Decision, supra note 2, 95 F.”
Radio Athens, Inc., (Wath) v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Valley Broad., Inc., Intervenor, 401 F.2d 398 (D.C. Cir. 1968). “47 C.F.R. § 1.227 (b) (1) (1968) provides in part: In broadest eases, no application will be consolidated for hearing with a previously filed application or applications unless such application, or such application as amended if amended so as to require a new file number, is…”
Reuters Ltd. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 781 F.2d 946 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “47 C.F.R. § 1.227 (b)(4) (1983). 47 C.F.R.”
Wlva, Inc. (Wlva-Tv), Lynchburg, Virginia v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Roanoke Telecasting Corp. (Wrft-Tv), Intervenor, 459 F.2d 1286 (D.C. Cir. 1972). “However, to satisfy the requirements of Ashlmcker the claimant need not show complete exclusivity, but only that a grant of the competing application is likely to affect substantially the outcome of its own application. See, e. g., Great Western Packers Express, Inc.”
James River Broad. Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 399 F.2d 581 (D.C. Cir. 1968). “47 C.F.R. § 1.227 (b) (1) (Supp.1968), provides that no application will be consolidated for hearing with a previously filed application or applications unless such application, or such application as amended if amended so as to require a new file number, is substantially…”
Natick Broadcast Assocs., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 385 F.2d 985 (D.C. Cir. 1967). ““Overlap” means interference created by the transmission of the signal of an applicant broadcasting station with the signal transmitted by one or more existing broadcasting stations.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.