# WOKO, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · April 22, 1946 · 153 F.2d 623

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637322

## Case

- **Full name:** WOKO, Inc., v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** April 22, 1946
- **Citations:** 153 F.2d 623
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Groner
- **Judges:** Groner, Miller, Pretty-Man
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by Federal Communications Commission v. Woko, Inc., 329 U.S. 223 (1946).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637322

## Opinion text

GRONER, C. J.
(dissenting).
I regret that I am not in accord with the conclusion reached by the majority. 1 do, however, very heartily agree with the view that this is a hard case. The Commission’s drastic order, términating the life of the station, punishes the innocent equally with the guilty, and in its results is contrary to the Commission’s action in several other comparable cases. But that the making of the order was within the discretion of the Commission, I think is reasonably clear.
Shortly stated, the record shows that WOKO, Inc., acting through its General Manager, who ever since its organization has represented it in all of its transactions with the Commission, deliberately misled the Commission by repeatedly misstating the beneficial ownership of twenty-four per cent (24%) of its capital stock. What, if anything, would have happened if the truth had been disclosed is, in my view, not material.
The case, as I think, turns rather upon the question whether the statutory power of the Commission to determine public interest, convenience or necessity is broad enough to authorize the rejection of a license for renewal for repeated false swearing in statements of fact required to be filed by the Commission’s rules and regulations. 1 An affirmative answer to the question seems to me to be obvious on the grounds of public policy and, accordingly, I do not stop to inquire whether the express statutory authority to revoke impliedly embraces also the power to refuse to renew. 2
47 U.S.C.A. § 308 .
47 U.S.C.A. § 312 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637322. Public record. Not legal advice.