Goodman v. Federal Communications Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a receiver may lack standing to sue if the party he is representing cannot allege an injury or assert a claim
• holding that an FCC order was an adjudication, and not a rulemaking, even though it impacted the validity of licenses held by non-parties to the proceeding
• dismissing case for lack of third-party standing because plaintiff failed to identify any hindrance to the third parties’ ability to assert their own interest
• for the proposition that adjudications may have prospective effects but must have retroactive effects
• “the nature of adjudication is that similarly situated non-parties may be affected by the policy or precedent applied, or even merely announced in dicta, to those before the tribunal”
• “We conclude that Goodman [the receiver] lacks standing to sue the Commission. He does not represent the parties who sustained the injury of which he complains, nor is there anything preventing the parties who were injured from themselves protecting their rights.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).