FLY ET AL.
v.
HEITMEYER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
When the Federal Communications Commission denied Heitmeyer's application for a broadcasting permit based on financial disqualification, a court of appeals reversed the decision and remanded the case; the Supreme Court held that upon remand, the Commission could reopen the record and consider new evidence from competing applications, as it had a duty to apply the proper statutory standard regardless of its prior erroneous denial.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter delivered the opinion of the Court.
On March 25, 1935, Heitmeyer, respondent here, applied for a permit from the Federal Communications Commission under § 319 of the Communications Act of 1934, c. 652, 48 Stat. 1089, 47 U. S. C. 319, to construct a broadcasting station at Cheyenne, Wyoming”. His application and a competing one were heard by an examiner. The Commission, on May 1, 1936, denied respondent’s application on the sole'ground that he was financially disqualified. He appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Commission’s decision was reversed. Heitmeyer v. Federal Communications Commission, 68 App. D. C. 180; 95 F. 2d 91. To proceed in conformity with this opinion, the case was remanded.to the Commission.
After Heitmeyer’s appeal two other applications for the same facilities were filed with the Commission. Following intermediate litigation, needless here to recount, the Commission directed that réspondent’s case be reopened in conjunction with the pending rival applications . Before this hearing could be had, respondent obtained from the Court of Appeals a writ of mandamus directing the Commission to restrict consideration of his application to the record originally before it. McNinch v. Heitmeyer, 70 App. D. C. 162; 105 F. 2d 41. Because important questions of administrative law were involved, we granted certiorari. 308 U. S. 540.
This case is controlled by our decision in Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., ante, p. 134.
The only relevant difference between the two cases is that here the Commission proposed on remand not only to reconsider respondent’s application on oral argument with subsequently filed rival applications, but to reopen the record and take new evidence on the comparative ability of the various applicants to satisfy “public convenience, interest, or necessity.” But the Commission’s duty was to apply the statutory standard in deciding which of the applicants was to receive a permit after it fell into legal error as well as before. If, in the Commission’s judgment, new evidence was necessary to discharge its duty, the fact of a previously erroneous denial should not, according to the principles enunciated in the Pottsville case, ante, bar it from access to the necessary evidence for correct judgment.
The judgment is reversed, with directions to dissolve the writ of mandamus and to dismiss respondent’s petition.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice McReynold's. concurs in the result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1961)…federal administrative tribunals may do on remand after a reviewing court has set aside agency orders as unsupported by requisite findings of fact. Federal Communications [*44] Comm’n v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U. S. 134; Fly v. Heitmeyer, 309 U. S. 146. In the absence of the slightest indication of any purpose on the part of the State to evade the Court’s prior decision, principles of finality protecting the parties to this state litigation are, within broad limits of fundamental fairness, solely…
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Food Store Emps. Union, Local 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen OF N. Am., AFL-CIO, 417 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1974)…l review does not impliedly foreclose the administrative agency, after its error has been corrected, from enforcing the legislative policy committed to its charge.” FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U. S. 134, 145 (1940); see Fly v. Heitmeyer, 309 U. S. 146, 148 (1940); FTC v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U. S. 37, 55 (1948); FPC v. Idaho Power Co., 344 U. S. 17, 20 (1952); Konigsberg [*10] v. State Bar, 366 U. S. 36, 43-44 (1961). Thus, when a reviewing court concludes that an agency invested with broad disc…
-
Greater Boston Television Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 463 F.2d 268 (D.C. Cir. 1971)…d upper courts is to disregard the origin and purposes of the movement for administrative regulation and at the same time to disregard the traditional scope, however far-reaching, of the judicial process.” In the companion case of Fly v. Heitmeyer, 309 U.S. 146, 60 S.Ct. 443, 84 L.Ed. 664 (1940), the Court held that the FCC could not only consider the application it had denied, for a reason contrary to law, on a comparative basis with others, but could also reopen the record and take new evidence. See 309…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heitmeyer v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 95 F.2d 91 (D.C. Cir. 1937)
- Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1939)
- McNinch v. Heitmeyer, 308 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1939)
- McNINCH v. Heitmeyer, 105 F.2d 41 (D.C. Cir. 1939)