Opinion

A. v. Bamford v. Federal Communications Commission

  • 535 F.2d 78
  • 175 U.S. App. D.C. 250
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Filed
May 6, 1976
Status
Published
Author
Van Pelt
On the bench
Van Pelt, Danaher, Leventhal, Van Pelt Nebraska
Cited by
18 cases

Commission's rejection of broadcast license application lacking required information upheld

How later courts described this case

  • Commission's rejection of broadcast license application lacking required information upheld
  • “[E]lementary fairness requires clarity of standards sufficient to apprise an applicant of what is expected”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

VAN PELT, Senior District Judge

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent from the excellently written majority opinion which accurately reflects the issues and the evidence.

I cannot subscribe to the finding of the Review Board that Bamford had failed to interview leaders of the Spanish-American population group at Corpus Christi. The four Spanish-Americans interviewed, as shown by the majority opinion are “a judge, a city councilman, a pastor of a Roman Catholic Mexican-American church, and the county clerk who was also president of the Knights of Columbus.” I am unable to believe in a community in which Spanish-Americans constitute 35.7% to 48% of the population (see note 10, majority opinion) that for a Spanish-American to be elected a judge, city councilman, or a county clerk is *87 not prima facie evidence of his or her leadership. As to the approximately 18% of the population who are below the poverty level, I would feel critical of any survey of a poverty group in such a community which did not include a conference with a priest of a Roman Catholic Mexican-American church. I am not a member of that religious group but my experience teaches me that almost uniformly Catholic priests are well informed as to the poverty needs of their community.

I would sustain the petitioner’s request to reopen the record for the submission of new survey material.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.