Confirm favorite deletion?
Administrative Law Keyed to Lawson
JEM Broadcasting Co. Inc. v. FCC
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
JEM submitted an application for a license for a new FM station and the FCC accepted it for filing. However, the FCC later found that JEM had provided inconsistent geographic coordinates for its proposed transmitter, and dismissed the application without providing JEM an opportunity to correct its error. Section:2344 of the Hobbs Act provides that any party aggrieved by a final agency order can file a petition to review the order within sixty days in the court of appeals where the venue lies. JEM challenged the “hard look” rules as in violation of the APA because the FCC had not given notice and an opportunity to comment. JEM conceded that the direct petitions for review were governed by the sixty-day period, but claimed that indirect attacks on a rule’s validity in the context of an adjudicatory proceeding were not so governed. Second, JEM urged that it couldn’t have petitioned for direct review of the “hard look” rules within the statutory period because it was not then an aggrieved party.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.