Dispatch, Inc. v. City of Erie
| Decision Date | 05 August 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 15772.,15772. |
| Citation | 364 F.2d 539 |
| Parties | DISPATCH, INC., Appellant, v. CITY OF ERIE and Council of the City of Erie and Erie Television Corporation, Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
John M. Wolford, Dunn & Wolford, Erie, Pa., Edith F. Lichota, Twinsburg, Ohio (Dunn & Wolford, Erie, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
Edward A. Pastewka, Erie, Pa. (Edward A. Pastewka, Asst. City Sol., Erie, Pa., on the brief), for appellees City of Erie and Council of City of Erie.
John W. English, Erie, Pa. (English, Gilson, Bowler, Shamp & Levin, James R. Jenks, Erie, Pa., on the brief), for intervenor, Erie Television Corp.
Before BIGGS, HASTIE and GANEY, Circuit Judges.
The appeal at bar arises out of a suit brought by the appellant, Dispatch, Inc., a Pennsylvania business corporation, against the City of Erie, a third-class municipal corporation of Pennsylvania, and the Council of the City of Erie. Dispatch owns and operates television and radio stations known as WICU duly licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. Erie Television Corporation, also a Pennsylvania corporation, stating that it had filed an application with the Council of the City of Erie for a franchise to construct and operate a community antenna television system in the city under a city ordinance hereinafter referred to, was permitted to intervene as a party defendant. Jurisdiction is asserted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1337 and 1331(a), with jurisdictional amount in excess of $10,000 if, in the words of the complaint, an allegation of jurisdictional amount be "necessary or relevant".
The eleventh paragraph of the complaint alleges: "The right or rights of plaintiff under its lawful license from the Federal Communications Commission would be illegally damaged and/or destroyed as well as seriously and irreparably injured by the granting of a franchise or franchises under * * * the City of Erie ordinance", hereinafter referred to.
The complaint asserts that by the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. Section 151, et seq., federal legislation has preempted the field of communication by radio and television throughout the United States, that the Council of the City of Erie by its Ordinance No. 39-1965 has provided for the granting of a franchise or franchises for community antenna in the City of Erie under a cable system generally designated as "CATV",1 that the ordinance constitutes an attempt to regulate an area of interstate communication preempted by federal legislation, is an abridgement of the right of free speech and also constitutes illegal censorship and unconstitutional form of taxation. The complaint prays for a permanent injunction against the City of Erie and the Council of Erie from effecting the provisions of the ordinance.
The ordinance, attached to the complaint as an exhibit, provides: There is also attached as part of the appellant Dispatch's appendix in this case Release G. No. 79,927 of the Federal Communications Commission of February 15, 1966, which was of course not before the court below. The City of Erie and the Council of the City of Erie, the original defendants, filed an answer which denied that the court below had jurisdiction of the cause of action either under Section 1331(a) or under Section 1337, Title 28, U.S.C. and also denied preemption of the community antenna television field CATV by federal legislation. The intervening defendant also answered in substance setting up the same defenses. Both answers asked that the complaint be dismissed. All defendants moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 (b) and Rule 56(c), Fed.R.Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C. The plaintiff also moved for summary judgment asserting that no factual issues are presented and that only the legality and constitutionality of the ordinance of the City of Erie was involved and that the case was "ripe" for summary judgment. No affidavits were filed. The court below granted the motion of the defendants for summary judgment, denied the injunction, and dismissed the complaint.
The court held that the Federal Government had not preempted the field of CATV, i. e., that the CATV system here in contemplation is not "in the exclusive federal domain by specific preemption.", citing the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C., Section 151, et seq., pointing out that in Cable Vision, Inc. v. KUTV, Inc.; The Klix Corporation, 335 F.2d 348, 352 (9 Cir. 1964), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that television signals in the air are in the public domain and free access thereto is given to anyone to copy whatever the federal patent and copyright laws leave available for that purpose, that the Erie ordinance in no way constitutes a burden on interstate commerce simply because it is asserted that Erie lacked power to enfranchise community antenna systems, that the ordinance was not in conflict with the free speech...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Brown
...U.S. 194, 211-213, 55 S.Ct. 187, 79 L.Ed. 281 (1934); Gibbs v. Blackwell, 354 F.2d 469, 471 (C.A. 5, 1965). Cf. Dispatch, Inc. v. City of Erie, 364 F.2d 539 (C.A. 3, 1966). They require concrete development to evaluate properly by the process of "sifting facts and weighing circumstances." B......
-
Bethel Baptist Church v. United States
...of plaintiffs' argument that summary judgment should not normally be granted in constitutional cases. See, e.g., Dispatch, Inc. v. City of Erie, 364 F.2d 539 (3d Cir. 1966). When appropriate in such cases, the court will enter a summary judgment. See Associated Film Distribution Corp. v. Th......
-
Cager, In re
...and, in any event, as an official report of a State Commission, this Court may take judicial notice of it. See Dispatch, Inc. v. City of Erie, 364 F.2d 539 (3d Cir., 1966); Department of Public Welfare v. Bohleber, 21 Ill.2d 587, 173 N.E.2d 457 (1961). See also Ex Parte Cromwell, supra, 232......
-
MCI Communications Corp. v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & T. CO., Civ. A. No. 73-2499.
...may take judicial notice of both them and the tariffs filed with the Pennsylvania Utilities Commission by Bell of Pa.. Dispatch, Inc. v. City of Erie, 364 F.2d 539 (3rd Cir. 1966). The parties have submitted certified copies of these tariffs for the Court's 2 See footnote 1, supra, p. 16. 3......