CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD ET AL.
v.
AMERICAN AIR TRANSPORT, INC. ET AL.
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 held that it should not exercise its discretionary power to review the entire matter when the certificate must be dismissed.
The Civil Aeronautics Board applied for an order requiring the Court of Appeals to send up the entire record. The Court of Appeals had issued a certif…
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 Administrative Agency Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The certificate is dismissed. Labor Board v. White Swan Co., 313 U. S. 23 (1941); Lowden v. Northwestern National Bank & Trust Co., 298 U. S. 160 (1936); White v. Johnson, 282 U. S. 367 (1931); United States v. Union Pacific R. Co., 168 U. S. 505 (1897).
The Civil Aeronautics Board has applied to this Court for an order requiring the Court of Appeals to send up the entire record. To grant such an application would bring “the entire matter in controversy” before the Court for decision. 28 U. S. C. § 1254 (3).
Since the certificate must be dismissed, the Court should not exercise its discretionary power to bring up “the entire matter in controversy” for review. See Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v. Arctic Iron Co., 248 U. S. 178 (1918). Perhaps the Court of Appeals may now wish to hear this case en banc to resolve the deadlock indicated in the certificate and give full review to the entire case. This Court does not normally review orders of administrative agencies in the first instance; and the Court does not desire to take any action at this time which might foreclose the possibility of such review in the Court of Appeals.
For these reasons the Board’s application is denied.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W. Pac. R.R. Corp. v. W. Pac. R.R. Co., 345 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1953)…be an important and useful device in the administration of justice in the courts of appeals is apparent from our action in United States ex rel. Robinson v. Johnston, 316 U. S. 649 (1942), and Civil Aeronautics Board v. American Air Transport, Inc., 344 U. S. 4 (1952). In the Robinson case, supra, where it appeared that a “conflict of views” had arisen “among the judges of the Ninth Circuit,” we remanded the case “for further proceedings, including leave to petitioner to apply for a hearing before the cour…1 / 2
-
Deutsche Lufthansa Aktienge-Sellschaft v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 479 F.2d 912 (D.C. Cir. 1973)…. See, e. g., Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 257 F. 2d 229 (1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 881, 79 S.Ct. 120, 3 L.Ed.2d 111 (1958); C.A.B. v. American Air Transport, Inc., 91 U.S.App.D.C. 318, 201 F. 2d 189, certificate dismissed, 344 U.S. 4, 73 S.Ct. 2, 97 L.Ed. 4 (1952); The Flying Tiger Line v. C. S. Murphy, et al., 244 F.Supp. 889 (D.C.D.C.1965), aff’d per curiam (D.C.Cir. #119,869, June 2, 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 945, 87 S.Ct. 316, 17 L.Ed.2d 224 (1966). . Environmental Defe…
-
Cafeteria & Rest. Workers Union, Local 473, AFL-CIO v. McELROY, 284 F.2d 173 (D.C. Cir. 1960)…f a court are prohibited from sitting en banc. But where, as here, the case on the statute is not foreclosed, they aid in tipping the scales in favor of the more practicable interpretation.” And see Civil Aeronautics Board v. Am. Air Transp., 1952, 344 U.S. 4, 5, 73 S.Ct. 2, 3, 97 L.Ed. 4 where the Court told this circuit it “may now wish to hear this case en banc to resolve the deadlock indicated in the certificate and give full review to the entire case.” . 20 Journal D.C. B.A. 103, 107, 108 (1953); a…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lowden v. Nw. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co., 298 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1936)
- White v. Johnson, 282 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1931)
- United States v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 168 U.S. 505 (U.S. 1897)
- Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v. Arctic Iron Co., 248 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1918)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. White Swan Co., 313 U.S. 23 (U.S. 1941)