GEORGE ALLISON & CO. ET AL.

v.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

Citator

Cited By

• Bangor & Aroostook R.R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 574 F.2d 1096 (1st Cir. 1978)
  …teel and Iron Co., 269 U.S. 217, 239-40, 46 S.Ct. 73, 70 L.Ed. 242 (1925). Its decision is not for us to disturb except in the face of abused discretion. See, e. g., George Allison & Co. v. ICC, 70 App.D.C. 375, 107 F. 2d 180 (1939), cert. denied, 309 U.S. 656, 60 S.Ct. 470, 84 L.Ed. 1005 (1940). While its award of interest at 4% is lower than the current commercial rate, both MEC and B&M appear earlier to have sought only 6% interest and the carriers failed to object to the ALJ’s decision to award only…
• Farmers Exp. Co. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 758 F.2d 733 (D.C. Cir. 1985)
  …eg. 20,-701 (1977). Indeed, it has been established in this court that the Commission has discretion to deny all pre-judgment interest on a reparations award. See, e.g., George Allison & Co. v. ICC, 107 F. 2d 180, 185 (D.C.Cir.1939), cert. denied, 309 U.S. 656, 60 S.Ct. 470, 84 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1940). Several courts have held that the Commission has wide discretion in granting interest on awards and may grant interest at rates above or below the prevailing rate. Bangor & Aroostook R.R. v. ICC, 574 F. 2d 10…
• Sudie Phipps Merriam v. Anacostia Nat'l Bank, 247 F.2d 596 (D.C. Cir. 1957)
  …e than another.” Joel v. Electrical Research Products, 2 Cir., 1938, 94 F. 2d 588, 590. See also Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Meyer, 9 Cir., 1953, 205 F. 2d 321; Barker v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co., 7 Cir., 1939, 107 F. 2d 530, certiorari denied, 1940, 309 U.S. 656, 60 S.Ct. 471, 84 L.Ed. 1005. This is not a vicarious but a direct obligation. We think a new trial should be granted because there was evidence sufficient for a jury to find (1) that a dangerous condition was created in the performance of work bei…