You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Beach Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

Citations: 10 F.3d 811; 304 U.S. App. D.C. 36; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 27855Docket: No. 91-1089

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; October 22, 1993; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Upon remand from the Supreme Court, the Court has published its order dated October 22, 1993, regarding a petition for review of a Federal Communications Commission order. Following the review of supplemental briefs from the parties, the Court has dismissed the petition for review. The dismissal is based on the determination that there is no justification for applying a heightened scrutiny standard as argued by the petitioners, leading to the conclusion that no significant legal issues remain for consideration. The Clerk is instructed to withhold the issuance of the mandate for seven days following any timely petition for rehearing, in accordance with D.C. Circuit Rule 15.

Legal Issues Addressed

Dismissal of Petition for Review

Application: The court dismissed the petition for review upon determining that there is no justification for applying a heightened scrutiny standard.

Reasoning: Following the review of supplemental briefs from the parties, the Court has dismissed the petition for review.

Issuance of Mandate

Application: The court directed the Clerk to withhold the mandate for a specified period following a petition for rehearing, in compliance with procedural rules.

Reasoning: The Clerk is instructed to withhold the issuance of the mandate for seven days following any timely petition for rehearing, in accordance with D.C. Circuit Rule 15.

Standard of Review

Application: The court concluded that no heightened scrutiny standard is required, which was a central argument by the petitioners.

Reasoning: The dismissal is based on the determination that there is no justification for applying a heightened scrutiny standard as argued by the petitioners.