Mobile Relay Associates 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.

• argument that RO failed to address all claims presented is properly brought as request for revision on the basis of CUE
• “We uphold the Commission if it makes a technical judgment that is supported with even a modicum of reasoned analysis, absent highly persuasive evidence to the contrary.” (cleaned up)
• reject- ing takings claim because the spectrum-use right given by a license under 47 U.S.C. § 301 “does not constitute a prop- erty interest protected by the Fifth Amendment”
• “the requirement that Nextel be a ‘direct’ and ‘current’ competitor of [plaintiffs] is likely met” but plaintiffs “lack competitor standing . . . because they have failed to make a concrete showing that they are likely to suffer financial injury”
• “Retroactive rules ‘alter[ ] the past legal consequences of past actions.’ ” (alteration and emphasis in original) (quoting Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 219, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988) (Scalia, J., concurring))
• A “promissory note is self- authenticating evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).