EASTERN AIR LINES, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, RESPONDENT; NATIONAL AIRLINES, INC., PETITIONER, V. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the petitions for review of the Board's order granting amended certificates of public convenience and necessity.
Petitioners sought review of a Board order granting amended certificates, effective November 29, 1958, which was stayed by the Board until December 6,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Certificate Of Public Convenience And Necessity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioners have filed petitions for review of the Board’s order of October 2, 1958. That order granted amended certificates of public convenience and necessity which were to become effective on November 29, 1958, but were stayed by the Board through December 6, 1958, so that this court might in the meantime hear and dispose of the petitions for stay presented to it. The granting of the requested stay is opposed by the Board and by the intervening airlines, Northwest, Delta, and Capital.
Section 1006(d) of the Civil Aeronautics Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 646(d), authorizes the court to grant a stay “upon good cause shown.” The petitioners also rely upon Section 10(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009(d).
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has recently held in Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission, D.C.Cir., 259 F. 2d 921, that stay of an order of an administrative agency may be granted when the following conditions are met:
(a) Where the petitioner is likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal;
(b) Where the petitioner has shown that without a stay it will suffer irreparable injury;
(c) Where there is no substantial harm to other interested persons; and
(d) Where the public interest will not be harmed.
See also Air Line Pilots Ass’n, International v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 2 Cir., 215 F. 2d 122, 125; Yakus v.' United States, 321 U.S. 414, 440, 64 S.Ct. 660, 88 L.Ed. 834.
In the interest of expedition it is impossible in the time available before expiration of the Board’s stay to review this complex litigation and state in de tail our reasons for denying the stay. It will suffice to say that we are not persuaded that the requisite conditions for granting the stay are shown to have been met, particularly those listed above as (c) and (d).
Stay denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1967)
-
Associated Sec. Corp. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 283 F.2d 773 (10th Cir. 1960)
-
Callery Props., Inc. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 335 F.2d 1004 (5th Cir. 1964)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (U.S. 1944)
- Va. Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 259 F.2d 921 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
- Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 215 F.2d 122 (2d Cir. 1954)