In Re Andrew-Thomson Broadcasting, Inc.

Related Cases

American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. Honorable John F. Grady, Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, MCI Communications Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. And Capital Cities/abc, Inc., Plaintiffs v. The United States, McA Inc., Universal City Studios, Inc., Tcf Holdings, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox, Turner Entertainment Company, the Coca-Cola Company, Columbia Pictures Ind., Inc., and Gulf & Western Ind. Inc., Third-Party-Defendants-Appellees
Andrew Corporation v. Gabriel Electronics Incorporated
In Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation. The City of Long Beach, as Trustee for the State of California State of California, on Behalf of Itself and All Political Subdivisions and Special Districts Within the State Similarly Situated State of Florida, Ex Rel. Jim Smith, Attorney General State of Oregon, on Behalf of Itself, Its Residents and All Political Subdivisions Within the State Similarly Situated State of Washington, on Behalf of Itself and Its Public Entities and Residents and State of Arizona v. Standard Oil Company of California Amerada Hess Corporation Cities Services Company and Cities Service Oil Company Conoco, Inc. Getty Oil Company Gulf Oil Corporation Powerline Oil Company Standard Oil Company of Indiana and Ohio Sun Oil Company, Inc. Atlantic Richfield Company Mobil Oil Corporation Phillips Petroleum Company Exxon Corporation Shell Oil Company Texaco, Inc. And Union Oil Company of California, and Leroy K. Cheney Charles F. Temme Milford E. Tracy Clinton E. Kelley L. John Gandsey and Ralf Eckles, Third Party Deponents-Appellants. Mobil Oil Corporation Exxon Corporation Leroy K. Cheney Ralf Eckles L. John Gandsey Clinton E. Kelley Charles F. Temme Milford E. Tracy Union Oil Company of California Howard K. Said and Brobeck, Phleger and Harrison v. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, State of California, Real Parties in Interest
Telecommunications Research and Action Center and Media Access Project v. Federal Communications Commission and the United States of America, National Association of Broadcasters, Public Broadcasting Service, American Newspaper Publishers Association, Intervenors

907 F.2d 157

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
In re ANDREW-THOMSON BROADCASTING, INC., Petitioner.

Misc. No. 285.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 22, 1990.

Before RICH, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

1

Andrew-Thomson Broadcasting, Inc. (ATBI) petitions for writ of mandamus to direct the Claims Court to accept for filing ATBI's notice of appeal of a March 23, 1990 Claims Court order. The petition was filed today, May 22, 1990 and today is the final day that such a notice of appeal will be timely.1

2

This court is reviewing the merits of ATBI's petition under severe time restrictions.2 Upon this review, we determine that the better course is to direct the Claims Court to accept and forward ATBI's notice of appeal. If a motion to dismiss or other motion is then appropriate, this court can review the relevant issues in that context.

3

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

4

ATBI's petition for writ of mandamus is granted. The Clerk of the Claims Court is directed to accept ATBI's notice of appeal of the Claims Court's March 23, 1990 order and forward it to this court.

1

In its petition, ATBI also requested that this court direct the Claims Court to accept its notice of appeal from the May 21, 1990 Claims Court order regarding intervention. After the petition was filed, the Claims Court ruled on that motion, granting ATBI permission to appeal from its May 21, 1990 order. Accordingly, that portion of ATBI's petition is moot

2

Because of the time restrictions, we are unable to order responses from any respondents