CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD
v.
STATE AIRLINES, INC.; STATE AIRLINES, INC. V. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD ET AL.; AND PIEDMONT AVIATION, INC. V. STATE AIRLINES, INC.
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD
STATE AIRLINES, INC.; STATE AIRLINES, INC. V. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD ET AL.; AND PIEDMONT AVIATION, INC. V. STATE AIRLINES, INC.
338 U.S. 812
Supreme Court of the United States (1949)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wong Yang Sung v. McGRATH, 339 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1950)…peals affirmed. 84 U. S. App. D. C. 419, 174 F. 2d 158. Prisoner’s petition for certiorari was not opposed by the Government and, because the question presented has obvious importance in the administration of the immigration laws, we granted review. 338 U. S. 812. The Administrative Procedure Act of June 11, 1946, supra, is a new, basic and comprehensive regulation of procedures in many agencies, more than a few of which can advance arguments that its generalities should not or do not include them. Determin…
-
Civil Aeronautics Bd. v. State Airlines, Inc., 338 U.S. 572 (U.S. 1950)….5 We [*575] granted certiorari because a final determination of the questions involved, particularly those involving interpretation of the Act, is of importance for future guidance of the Board in carrying out its congressionally imposed functions. 338 U. S. 812. First. We hold that Piedmont’s applications were sufficient to permit certification of Piedmont for the routes awarded. The contrary holding of the Court of Appeals rested primarily on its interpretation of § 401 (d) (1) and (2) of the Civil Aeron…