WORZ, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
WORZ, INC., v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Et Al.
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. In view of the representations in the Solicitor General’s brief on pages 4 and 5, concerning testimony given before the Subcommittee on Legislative Oversight of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce subsequent to the decision by the Court of Appeals in this case, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for such action as it may deem appropriate.
Dissent
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan
dissent. The matters referred to by the Court were not presented in the Court of Appeals and are not presented by this petition. Agreeing with the Solicitor General that denial *56 of the petition for writ of certiorari would not foreclose appropriate consideration thereof by the Court of Appeals, we see no reason for vacating the Court of Appeals’ judgment and, therefore, dissent from this disposition of the matter by the Court.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
358 U.S. 55 (1958)
WORZ, INC.,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL.
No. 349.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided October 27, 1958. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.
Eliot C. Lovett for petitioner.
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen, Charles H. Weston, John L. Fitzgerald and Richard A. Solomon for the Federal Communications Commission. respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. In view of the representations in the Solicitor General's brief on pages 4 and 5. concerning testimony given before the Subcommittee on Legislative Oversight of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce subsequent to the decision by the Court of Appeals in this case, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for such action as it may deem appropriate.
MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissent. The matters referred to by the Court were not presented in the Court of Appeals and are not presented by this petition. Agreeing with the Solicitor General that denial *56 of the petition for writ of certiorari would not foreclose appropriate consideration thereof by the Court of Appeals, we see no reason for vacating the Court of Appeals' judgment and, therefore, dissent from this disposition of the matter by the Court.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- City of Angels Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Fidelity Television, Inc., Rko General, Inc.
- Worz, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Mid-Florida Television Corporation
- Worz, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Mid-Florida Television Corporation
- Consolidated Nine, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Comint Corporation and Mid-Florida Television Corporation
- Consolidated Nine, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
- Worz, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Mid-Florida Television Corporation
Most recent
- City of Angels Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Fidelity Television, Inc., Rko General, Inc.
- Tv 9, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Mid-Florida Televisioncorporation
- TV 9, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
- Consolidated Nine, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Comint Corporation and Mid-Florida Television Corporation
- Consolidated Nine, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
- Worz, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Mid-Florida Television Corporation
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.