47 C.F.R. § 73.3518
Inconsistent or conflicting applications
While an application is pending and undecided, no subsequent inconsistent or conflicting application may be filed by or on behalf of or for the benefit of the same applicant, successor or assignee.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1994–2005 · leading case: CFM Commc'ns, LLC v. Mitts Telecasting Co., 424 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (E.D. Cal. 2005).
CFM Commc'ns, LLC v. Mitts Telecasting Co., 424 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (E.D. Cal. 2005). “Given this prohibition, and given Larry Miller’s pending application for Channel 45 in Lincoln, Larry Miller could not, consistent with 47 C.F.R. § 73.3518 , also propose to acquire and hold a second attributable ownership interest in the permittee of Channel 51 in Lincoln.”
Jersey Shore Broad. Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 37 F.3d 1531 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “Prior to the settlement agreement, an FCC Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) dismissed applications filed by Jersey Shore as “inconsistent applications” under 47 C.F.R. § 73.3518 (1993). In an effort to re-enter the comparative licensing proceeding, Press negotiated with another…”
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.