# James S. Rivers, Inc., (Wjaz) v. Federal Communications Commission

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · November 3, 1965 · 351 F.2d 194

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9451061

## Case

- **Full name:** JAMES S. RIVERS, INC., (WJAZ), Appellant, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** November 3, 1965
- **Citations:** 351 F.2d 194
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bazelon
- **Judges:** Bazelon, McGOWAN, McGowan, Tamm
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9451061

## Opinion text

BAZELON, Chief Judge
(concurring) :
I concur in the opinion of the court. The Commission’s determinations concerning the “white” and “gray” areas are entitled to great weight since they require technical knowledge and expertise which the Commission possesses and we do not.
But on the question of discrimination in program content, the Commission’s expertise is at least no greater than ours and no question of regulatory policy is involved in deciding whether or not the facts presented constitute .discrimination. Also, we have no difficulty in analyzing the underlying facts as the court’s close scrutiny of the record on this issue clearly demonstrates. It follows that our scope of review here is correspondingly wider than it is on the “white” and “gray” area questions. S. E. C. v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 , 63 S.Ct. 454 , 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943); Mitchell v. United States, 313 U.S. 80 , 61 S.Ct. 873 , 85 L.Ed. 1201 (1941); Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816 , 70 S.Ct. 843 , 94 L.Ed. 1302 (1950). Nevertheless, the record does not support the claim of discrimination.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9451061. Public record. Not legal advice.