309 F.2d 83 (7th Cir. 1962), 13667, Daly v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

Docket Nº:13667, 13683, 13739.
Citation:309 F.2d 83
Party Name:Lar DALY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Lar DALY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WEST CENTRAL BROADCASTING COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees. Lar DALY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN BROADCASTING-PARAMOUNT THEATRES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Case Date:October 24, 1962
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 83

309 F.2d 83 (7th Cir. 1962)

Lar DALY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Lar DALY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WEST CENTRAL BROADCASTING COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Lar DALY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN BROADCASTING-PARAMOUNT THEATRES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 13667, 13683, 13739.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

October 24, 1962

Page 84

Lar Daly, Chicago, Ill., Howard Newcomb Morse, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

G. Gale Roberson and George L. Siegel, Chicago, Ill., for Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

George D. Newton, Jr., Chicago, Ill., Herbert M. Livingston, Bloomington, Ill., Victor P. Michel, Peoria, Ill., G. Gale Roberson, Chicago, Ill., Charles H. Northrup, Springfield, Ill., Timothy W. Swain and Paul C. Cation, Peoria, Ill., John B. Moser, Chicago, Ill., for West Cent. Broadcasting Co. et al.

G. Gale Roberson, John B. Moser and George D. Newton, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., et al.

Before DUFFY, KNOCH and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.

DUFFY, Circuit Judge.

Lar Daly is the plaintiff in three suits which are now before us on appeal.

In No. 13667, Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. is the sole defendant. The suit was brought to recover compensatory damages of $146,075, and exemplary damages of $25,267,187 for alleged violation of Sec. 315(a) 1 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.A. § 315(a). 2

In No. 13683, the defendants are West Central Broadcasting Company and sixteen other broadcasting companies all located in the State of Illinois. This suit was brought to recover compensatory damages of $14,176.50 and exemplary damages in the sum of $703,087 for the alleged violation of said Sec. 315(a).

In No. 13739, the defendants are the American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., the Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. and the National Broadcasting Company, Inc. In this case, plaintiff sought compensatory damages of $1,328,948, and exemplary damages in the sum of $68,270,644, again for the alleged violation of Sec. 315(a) of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

No. 13667

LAR DALY V. COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC.

The Chicago Municipal Primary Election was held on February 24, 1959. Plaintiff was a candidate for both the Democratic and Republican nomination for the office of Mayor. The complaint alleged his sole opponent in each party's primary was afforded free use of WBBM, located in Chicago, and that defendant Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. was the licensee of this station. The complaint referred to seven locally originated news broadcasts during December 1958 and January 1959.

On February 11, 1959, plaintiff requested that defendant afford him free and equal time under Sec. 315(a) of the Act. Defendant refused this request. Plaintiff then appealed to the Federal Communications Commission which, on February 19, 1959, issued an order directing defendant to provide plaintiff with equal opportunity and equal time. Defendant refused to comply and on February 20, 1959, filed a petition for reconsideration with the Commission. As this petition was filed only four days prior to the primary election, it was improbable that action thereon could or would be taken before the primary election. The Commission's decision on the petition for reconsideration was released on June 17, 1959, and therein the Commission reaffirmed its decision of February 19, 1959.

Page 85

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP