TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Chickasaw Telephone Company, for the Benefit of Ctc Scholarship Trust v. Federal Communications Commission, Cci Rsa, Inc.

Chickasaw Tel. Co., for the Benefit of Ctc Scholarship Trust v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 24 F.3d 1464 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 19, 1994
Docket
No. 93-1175
Citations
24 F.3d 1464306 U.S. App. D.C. 3561994 U.S. App. LEXIS 27335
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

24 F.3d 1464 306 U.S.App.D.C. 356

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant. CHICKASAW TELEPHONE COMPANY, for the Benefit of CTC SCHOLARSHIP TRUST, Appellant, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee, CCI RSA, Inc., Intervenor.

No. 93-1175.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

May 19, 1994.

Before: WALD, SILBERMAN, and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

1

This cause came to be heard on an appeal of an order from the Federal Communications Commission, and was briefed and argued by counsel. While the issues presented occasion no need for a published opinion, they have been accorded full consideration by the Court. See D.C.Cir.R. 36(b) (January 1, 1994). On consideration thereof, it is 2

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the FCC's decision to reject the application is affirmed. Based on the information in the application for a nonwireline block license, the FCC reasonably concluded that Chickasaw Telephone Company rather than the trust was the applicant and that Chickasaw was ineligible for a nonwireline license since it was a wireline carrier. It is 3

FURTHER ORDERED, by this Court, sua sponte, that the Clerk shall withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.R. 41(a)(1) (January 1, 1994). This instruction to the Clerk is without prejudice to the right of any party at any time to move for expedited issuance of the mandate for good cause shown.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list