Herbert L. Rippe, Petitioner, v. the Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Respondents., 528 F.2d 771 (6th Cir. 1976)

Federal Circuits, 6th Cir. (January 09, 1976)

Docket number: 74-2117


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/herbert-rippe-communications-commission-38391648
Id. vLex: VLEX-38391648

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir. - Rhode Island Television Corporation and Robert A. Riesman, Appellants, v. Federal Communications Commission, Appellee, Wtev Television, Inc., Intervenor. Rhode Island Television Corporation and Robert A. Riesman, Petitioners, v. Federal Communications Commission, and United States of America, Respondents, Wtev Television, Inc., Intervenor., 320 F.2d 762 (D.C. Cir. 1963) Appellants, v. Federal Communications Commission, Appellee, Wtev Television, Inc., Intervenor. Rhode Island Television Corporation and Robert A. Riesman, Petitioners, v. Federal Communications Commission, and United States of America, Respondents, Wtev Television, Inc., Intervenor.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - Cook, Inc., Petitioner, v. United States of America and Federal Communications Commission, Respondents, White River Radio Corporation and Bloomington Broadcasting Company, Intervenors., 394 F.2d 84 (7th Cir. 1968) Inc., Petitioner, v. United States of America and Federal Communications Commission, Respondents, White River Radio Corporation and Bloomington Broadcasting Company, Intervenors.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Valley Vision, Inc., Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Respondents (Two Cases). Valley Vision, Inc., Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission, Respondent., 399 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1968) Inc., Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Respondents (Two Cases). Valley Vision, Inc., Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission, Respondent.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Cir. - Whdh, Inc., Petitioner, v. United States of America, and Federal Communications Commission, Respondents, Boston Broadcasters, Inc., Intervenor., 457 F.2d 559 (1st Cir. 1972) Inc., Petitioner, v. United States of America, and Federal Communications Commission, Respondents, Boston Broadcasters, Inc., Intervenor.

FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - La Voz Radio de la Communidad, Miguel Toro, Leandra Abriu, Rosalia Polanco, Israe Lucatero, Keyla Acosta, Manuel Valles, Ingris Branch, Bernardo Moya, Olga Garcia, Henry Rodriguez, Jose L. Baez, Angel Coriano, Cruz Coriano, Bienvenida Rodriguez, Miguel Ruiz, Pedro Pena, Francisca Romero, Luz Maria Montenegro, Rafela Ferrera, and Justina Fernandez, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Federal Communications Commission, and James Bridgewater, Defendants-Appellees., 223 F.3d 313 (6th Cir. 2000) Miguel Toro, Leandra Abriu, Rosalia Polanco, Israe Lucatero, Keyla Acosta, Manuel Valles, Ingris Branch, Bernardo Moya, Olga Garcia, Henry Rodriguez, Jose L. Baez, Angel Coriano, Cruz Coriano, Bienvenida Rodriguez, Miguel Ruiz, Pedro Pena, Francisca Romero, Luz Maria Montenegro, Rafela Ferrera, and Justina Fernandez, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Federal Communications Commission, and James Bridgewater, Defendants-Appellees.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Szoka, Defendant-Appellant., 260 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2001)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir. - Cadc 79-71 City of Rochester, a Municipal Corporation in the State of New York, Et Al., Appellants, v. Langhorne M. Bond, Individually and as Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, Et Al., 603 F.2d 927 (D.C. Cir. 1979)

Text:

David E. Gebhart, Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner.

Vergil W. Tacy, Legal Advisory and Enforcement Div., F. C. C., Washington, D.C., William W. Milligan, U.S. Atty., Cincinnati, Ohio, for respondents.

Petition for review from the Federal Communications Commission.

On PETITION to Review an Order of the Federal Communications Commission.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and PECK and LIVELY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Herbert L. Rippe, a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission for licenses in the Amateur Radio Service. The application was denied by the Commission. Rippe thereupon filed a petition in this Court to enjoin, set aside, annul and suspend the Commission's order.

The Commission has filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that exclusive jurisdiction is in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Judicial review of decisions of the Commission is provided by 47 U.S.C. § 402. In the words of then Circuit Judge Warren E. Burger, this statute sets forth two "`. . . mutually exclusive' paths of judicial review" of Commission actions. Rhode Island Television Corp. v. FCC, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 40, 320 F.2d 762, 766 (1963). Section 402(b) enumerates categories of decisions and orders relating to radio licensing actions, including denial of applications for licenses, and provides for appellate jurisdiction over these actions in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The denial of the application in the present case falls under § 402(b). The courts "have consistently held that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has exclusive jurisdiction over cases that fall within the scope of the provision," i. e. § 402(b). Cook, Inc. v. United States, 394 F.2d 84, 86 (7th Cir. 1968). See also WHDH, Inc. v. United States, 457 F.2d 559 (1st Cir. 1972); Valley Vision, Inc. v. FCC, 399 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1968).

We conclude that this Court is without jurisdiction in the matter and that the motion to dismiss is well taken.

Upon motion of petitioner, this case will be transferred to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The petitioner is allowed thirty days from the filing of this per curiam opinion to file such a motion. If a motion to transfer is not filed by petitioner within the time herein specified, the motion to dismiss will be granted and the case will be dismissed. No costs are taxed.

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access