# Multi-State Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Rko General, Inc., Intervenor

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · March 19, 1979 · 590 F.2d 1117

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9465433

## Case

- **Full name:** MULTI-STATE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Appellant, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee, RKO General, Inc., Intervenor
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** March 19, 1979
- **Citations:** 590 F.2d 1117; 192 U.S. App. D.C. 1
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bazelon
- **Judges:** Bazelon, Fifth, Tuttle
- **Cited by:** 9 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/9465433

## Opinion text

BAZELON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I would remand the case for consideration of a second financial commitment presented to the FCC by Multi-State in May, 1977. Although produced late in the proceeding, the second commitment was submitted before the Commission’s order was final. 1 This court has recognized that such late presentations, when changing a “core” circumstance of the case and when supported by equitable considerations, can be accepted by the FCC without disturbing the value of administrative finality. 2 A second commitment would clearly affect the core circumstances of the case. Moreover, the issues raised by Multi-State’s appeal were substantial, as the majority decision today demonstrates, and the difficulties of acquiring a second financial commitment were also substantial. 3 Accordingly, I cannot say that Multi-State’s delay in obtaining the second commitment bars its consideration.
. The FCC order was under judicial review at the time the Commission confronted the second financial commitment, RKO General, Inc., FCC 78-96 (Feb. 22, 1978). See Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 149 U.S.App.D.C. 322, 336 , 463 F.2d 268 , 282 (1971), cert. denied sub nom. WHDH, Inc. v. FCC, 406 U.S. 950 , 92 S.Ct. 2042 , 32 L.Ed.2d 338 (1972).
. Crosthwait v. FCC, 1- 89 U.S.App.D.C. 392, at 396-398 , 584 F.2d 550, at 554-556 , (1978); Fleming v. FCC, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 223 , 225 F.2d 523 (1955); Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, supra, at 337, 463 F.2d at 283 .
. Additional factors appear in the background of this case which may not, by themselves, mandate a remand, but which touch directly on the question of fairness to Multi-State. RKO General, the incumbent licensee, was a major customer of Chase Manhattan. This potential conflict of interest shadows the bank officer’s failure to review the creditworthiness of MultiState before issuing the letter, and his subsequent testimony on the matter.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9465433. Public record. Not legal advice.