Federal Communications Commission v. Woko
Decision Date | 09 December 1946 |
Docket Number | No. 65,65 |
Citation | 67 S.Ct. 213,329 U.S. 223,91 L.Ed. 204 |
Parties | FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. WOKO, Inc |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Decision of Federal Communications Commission refusing to renew radio station's license because station's general manager appeared on behalf of station of various hearings before Federal Radio Commission and Federal Communications Commission and furnished false testimony, so as to conceal holdings of one stockholder, could not be reversed because it would injure innocent stockholders or because commission had previously taken less drastic measures in prior similar cases. Communications Act of 1934, §§ 308(b), 312(a), 402(e), 47 U.S.C.A. §§ 308(b), 312(a), 402(e).
Decision of Federal Communications Commission refusing to renew radio station's license because station's general manager appeared on behalf of station at various hearings before Federal Radio Commission and Federal Communications Commission and furnished testimony, so as to conceal holdings of one stockholder, could not be reversed by court on ground that the decision imposed a penalty or because of commission's failure to make findings with respect to quality of station's service in the past and its equipment for good service in the future. Communications Act of 1934, §§ 308(b), 31 (a), 402(e), 47 U.S.C.A. §§ 308(b), 312(a), 402(e).
Mr.Harry M. Plotkin, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 224 intentionally omitted] Mr.William J. Dempsey, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
WOKO, Incorporated, for some years has operated a radio station at Albany, New York, and appears to have readered public service of acceptable quality and to be able to continue. The Federal Communications Commission refused to renew its license because of misrepresentations made to the Commission and its predecessor as to the ownership of the applicant's capital stock. Two hundred and forty shares, being twenty-four per cent of its outstanding capital stock, was owned by one Pickard and his family. For some twelve years they received all dividends paid on the stock and Pickard took an active interest in the Company's affairs. He also was a vice-president of the Columbia Broadcasting Company and had obtained the stock on the assurance that he would help to secure Columbia affiliation for Station WOKO, would furnish, without charge, Columbia engineers to construct the station at Albany, and supply a grand piano and certain newspaper publicity.
The company, however, in reporting to the Federal Radio Commission and to the Federal Communications Commission the names of its stockholders as it was required to do for many years and in many applications, concealed the fact that the Pickards held this stock interest and represented that the shares were held by others. Its general manager appeared on behalf of the applicant at various hearings and furnished false testimony to both Commissions regarding the identity of the corporation stockholders and the shares held by each so as to conceal the Pickard holdings. The purpose of the concealment was to prevent the facts from becoming known to Pickard's Columbia colleagues.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the Commission's decision denying renewal of the license, a majority for the various reasons that we will consider. The dissenting Chief Justice noted that he did We granted certiorari because of the importance of the issue to the administration of the Act.
We come to a consideration of the reasons which led the Court of Appeals to reverse the order of the Commission under the admonition that 'review by the court shall be limited to questions of law and that findings of fact by the Commission, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive unless it shall clearly appear that the findings of the Commission are arbitrary or capricious.' 48 Stat. 1094, 47 U.S.C. § 402(e), 47 U.S.C.A. § 402(e).
The Act provides as to applications such as WOKO filed that 'All such applications shall set forth such facts as the Commission by regulation may prescribe as to the citizenship, character, and financial, technical, and other qualifications of the applicant to operate the station; the ownership and location of the proposed station * * * and such other information as it may require.' It requires such statements to be under oath or affirmation. 48 Stat. 1084, 47 U.S.C. § 308(b), 47 U.S.C.A. § 308(b). It provides, too, that any station license may be revoked for false statements in the application. 48 Stat. 1086, 47 U.S.C. § 312(a), 47 U.S.C.A. § 312(a).
It is said...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation
...command does not include criminal prosecution. See n. 1, supra. 26 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(a), 312(a)(2); FCC v. WOKO, Inc., 329 U S. 223, 229, 67 S.Ct. 213, 216, 91 L.Ed. 204. Cf. Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 89 S.Ct. 935, 22 L.Ed.2d 162; Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 78 S.Ct. 277,......
-
Cbs, Inc v. Federal Communications Commission American Broadcasting Companies, Inc v. Federal Communications Commission National Broadcasting Company, Inc v. Federal Communications Commission 80 214
...of judicial for administrative discretion since Congress has confided the problem to the latter." FCC v. WOKO, Inc., 329 U.S. 223, 229, 67 S.Ct. 213, 216, 91 L.Ed. 204 (1946). "[C]ourts should not overrule an administrative decision merely because they disagree with its wisdom." Radio Corp.......
-
American Broadcasting Co. v. United States
...to any applicant whose radio or television activities were found to violate the Commission's Rules. Federal Communications Commission v. W. O. K. O., 329 U.S. 223, 67 S.Ct. 213, 91 L.Ed. 204. A finding by the Federal Communications Commission that its rules had been transgressed would not a......
-
Federal Communications Commission v. Wncn Listeners Guild Insilco Broadcasting Corporation v. Wncn Listeners Guild American Broadcasting Companies, Inc v. Wncn Listeners Guild National Association of Broadcasters v. Wncn Listeners Guild 79 827
...to substantial judicial deference. See, e. g., FCC v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, supra; FCC v. WOKO, Inc., 329 U.S. 223, 229, 67 S.Ct. 213, 216, 91 L.Ed. 204 (1946). Furthermore, diversity is not the only policy the Commission must consider in fulfilling its responsibilit......
-
1. Administrative Procedure Act
...powers 1. The denial of an application for a renewal of a license is not a penal measure. Federal Communications Commission v. WOKO . 329 U.S. 223 (1946). It is, by definition in section 2 (f), a form of agency sanction. 1 126 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT 89 are very clear; they are set for......
-
Hill v. Scott: the Eighth Circuit Upholds the Basic Principles of the Objective Reasonableness Standard in a Case of Mistaken Identity Arrest
...judges: "We agree that this is a hard case, but we cannot agree that it should be allowed to make bad law." Id. (citing FCC v. WOKO, Inc., 329 U.S. 223, 229 (1946)). 297. Id. 298. Id. at 1343. 299. Id. 300. Id. 301. Id. at 1347, 1349, 1351. 302. Id. at 1341, 1346. 303. Id. at 1345 (citing L......
-
Hill v. Scott: the Eighth Circuit Upholds the Basic Principles of the Objective Reasonableness Standard in a Case of Mistaken Identity Arrest
...judges: "We agree that this is a hard case, but we cannot agree that it should be allowed to make bad law." Id. (citing FCC v. WOKO, Inc., 329 U.S. 223, 229 (1946)). 297. Id. 298. Id. at 1343. 299. Id. 300. Id. 301. Id. at 1347, 1349, 1351. 302. Id. at 1341, 1346. 303. Id. at 1345 (citing L......