MITCHELL BROS. TRUCK LINES

v.

UNITED STATES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Dart Transit Co. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 567 F.2d 818 (8th Cir. 1977)
  …5 U.S. 554, 558, 78 S.Ct. 496, 2 L.Ed.2d 484 (1958); Dart Transit Co. v. ICC, 110 F.Supp. 876 (D.Minn.), aff’d 345 U.S. 980, 73 S.Ct. 1138, 97 L.Ed. 1394 (1953); Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines v. United States, 225 F.Supp. 755, 758-59 (D.Or.1963), aff’d 378 U.S. 125, 84 S.Ct. 1657, 12 L.Ed.2d 744 (1964). The Commission’s view of Dart’s permit authority as being one of “intended use” and its interpretation of the terms “packinghouse supplies” and “canning factory supplies” as not embracing tin plate have not be…
• REA Express, Inc. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 568 F.2d 940 (2d Cir. 1977)
  …estops it from relying on its Rule 247(f). Aside from the highly [*949] dubious proposition that a government agency may be equitably estopped, see Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines v. United States, 225 F.Supp. 755 (D.Ore.1963) (three-judge court), aff'd, 378 U.S. 125 (1964) (per curiam); Sims Motor Transport Lines, Inc. v. United States, 183 F.Supp. 113, 119 (N.D.Ill.1959) (three-judge court), clearly there is no basis whatsoever for suggesting anything even akin to estoppel on the part of the Commission here. T…
• Chem-Haulers, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States, 594 F.2d 166 (5th Cir. 1979)
  …. v. United States, 567 F. 2d 818 (8th Cir. 1977). We are not concerned with either the weight of the evidence or with the soundness of the Commission’s reasoning. Mitchell Brothers Truck Lines v. United States, 225 F.Supp. 775 (D.Or.1963), aff’d, 378 U.S. 125, 84 S.Ct. 1657, 12 L.Ed.2d 744 (1964); Eagle Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 236 F.Supp. 502 (N.D.Ala.1964). After canvassing the entire record, we do not believe that the Commission’s interpretation of the terms at issue was capricious or arb…