CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD
v.
HERMANN 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 Civil Aeronautics Board sought to enforce administrative subpoenas requiring respondents operating an unlicensed air travel system to produce documents for an enforcement proceeding alleging violations of aviation regulations and statutes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the District Court's enforcement order, holding that the Board had the authority to compel production of documents relevant to the issues in its complaint, provided appropriate safeguards were in place to minimize business disruption and respondents retained the right to challenge the admissibility of specific documents at the hearing.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner had instituted an administrative enforcement proceeding against the respondents, a group of individuals and business entities operating as the “Skycoach” air travel system. The Board’s complaint charged violation of its regulations as well as of the Civil Aeronautics Act and sought certain revocation and cease-and-desist orders against respondents. In the course of the proceedings, the Hearing Examiner issued a number of subpoenas duces tecum calling for the production of certain categories of documents of the respondent companies covering specified periods of time. On a motion to quash on the grounds, inter alia, that the subpoenas were vague, excessively broad in scope, and oppressive, both the Hearing Examiner and the Board found that the subpoenas described the documents to be produced with sufficient particularity, were reasonable in scope, and were not oppressive. Upon respondents’ continued refusal to honor the subpoenas, petitioner filed this enforcement proceeding. Initially the trial judge continued the cause for 10 days "on condition that respondents . . . make the documents specified in the administrative subpenas . . . available immediately to the representatives of the Civil Aeronautics Board for examination and copying at the usual places of business of the named respondents . . . Upon the expiration of this period, the court, on a showing that respondents had not complied with this condition, entered an order of enforcement allowing “a sufficient length of time between dates for the production of the documents ... so that the respondents will not be deprived of all of their books and records at the same time.” The court found that it could not say “that any of the documents or things called for in any of the subpoenas are immaterial or irrelevant to the proceedings before the Board . . without an examination of each of the items ordered produced. The Court of Appeals reversed, establishing certain procedural requirements the Board must follow before an enforcement proceeding is in order. 237 F. 2d 359.
As we read the order of the District Court, it duly enforced the Board’s right to call for documents relevant to the issues of the Board’s complaint, with appropriate provisions for assuring the minimum interference with the conduct of the business of respondents. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court with instructions to reinstate its enforcement order of May 16, 1955. See § 1004 (b), Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1021, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 644 (b); Brown v. United States, 276 U. S. 134, 142-143 (1928); Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186 (1946); Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, 317 U. S. 501, 509 (1943). Of course this enforcement order leaves open to the respondents ample opportunities for objecting, on relevant grounds, to the admissibility into evidence of any particular document.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1978)…Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, 36 Fed. Reg. 3255 (1971); Pre-Construction Permit Activities, 39 Fed. Reg. 14506 (1974); Environmental Protection — Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures. Id., at 26279. See, e. g., CAB v. Hermann, 353 U. S. 322 (1957); Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186 (1946); Wallace Corp. v. NLRB, 323 U. S. 248 (1944); Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, 317 U. S. 501 (1943); Utah, Fuel Co. v. National Bituminous Coal Comm’n, 306 U. S. 56 (1939); Norwegian…
-
Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Schreiber, 381 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1965)…ractice and Procedure provides that procedures to be followed in investigative proceedings shall “be such as in the opinion of the Commission will best serve the purposes of such proceeding.” 47 CFR § 1.1 (1965). Civil Aeronautics Board v. Hermann, 353 U. S. 322; Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186; Wallace Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 323 U. S. 248; Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, 317 U. S. 501; Utah Fuel Co. v. National Bituminous Coal Comm’n, 306 U. S. 56; Norwegian Nitrogen…
-
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Texaco, Inc, 555 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1977)…. 164, 171 (D.Md.1956), aff’d, 242 F. 2d 81, 84 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 353 U.S. 957, 77 S.Ct. 863, 1 L.Ed.2d 908 (1957). Accord, FTC v. Lonning, 176 U.S.App.D.C. 200, 539 F. 2d 202 (1976). . Six-Company Stipulation (filed 19 May 1976) at 3-4. . 353 U.S. 322, 323, 77. S.Ct. 804, 805, 1 L.Ed.2d 852 (1957). . Walling v. American Rolbal Corp., 135 F. 2d 1003, 1005 (2d Cir. 1943). . The Trade Commission’s and the majority’s arguments notwithstanding, it is common for a district court to require the admini…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Okla. Press Publ'g Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1946)
- Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, 317 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1943)
- Brown v. United States, 276 U.S. 134 (U.S. 1928)
- Hermann v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 237 F.2d 359 (9th Cir. 1956)