ARROW TRANSPORTATION CO. ET AL.
v.
CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS & TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. ET AL.

U.S. | 1965-01-18
No. 544
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice White would note probable jurisdiction of these appeals and set them for argument on. the merits.
379 U.S. 642 Supreme Court of the United States (1965) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court vacated a district court judgment that had enjoined an Interstate Commerce Commission order canceling railroad rate reductions, finding that the Commission's conclusion of a violation under section 3(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act lacked adequate findings and that its section 1(5) violation finding was based partly on the unsupported section 3(1) conclusion, and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to remand to the Commission for reconsideration.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

[*643] Per Curiam.

These appeals are from a single judgment of a three-judge District Court, 229 F. Supp. 572, which set aside and permanently enjoined the operation, enforcement and execution of the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 321 I.

C. C. 582, canceling certain rate reductions which had been put into effect by the appellee railroads on the grounds that the new lower rates violated §§ 1 (5) and 3 (1) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.

S. C. §§ 1 (5), 3 (1) (1958 ed.). The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to enter an order'remanding the case to the Interstate Commerce Commission for reconsideration by the Commission in light of the District Court’s determinations (1) that the Commission’s conclusion <that § 3 (1) was violated was not supported by. adequate, findings and (2) that the Commission’s conclusion that § 1 (5) was violáted was based, at least in part, on its prior conclusion that there was a violation of i 3 (1). See FPC v. Idaho Power Co., 344 U. S. 17, 20.

Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice White would note probable jurisdiction of these appeals and set them for argument on. the merits.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & the United States, 516 F.2d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
    …for reconsideration.” FPC v. Idaho Power Co., 344 U.S. 17, 20, 73 S.Ct. 85, 87, 97 L.Ed. 15 (1952); see NLRB v. Local 347 Food Store Employees, 417 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1974) (Brennan J.); Arrow Transportation Co. v. Cincinnati, N.O. & Texas Pac. Ry. Co., 379 U.S. 642, 85 S.Ct. 610, 13 L.Ed.2d 550 (1965); FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 145-46, 60 S.Ct. 437, 84 L.Ed. 656 (1940); National Ass’n of Motor Bus Owners v. FCC, 460 F. 2d 561, 566 (2d Cir. 1972); Williams v. Washington Met. Area Transit…
  • Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 606 F.2d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
    …ision 2), reversed, 321 I.C.C. 582 (1963) (Full Commission), reversed sub nom. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. United States, 229 F.Supp. 572 (S.D.Ohio 1964), vacated per curiam sub nom. Arrow Transport Co. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 379 U.S. 642, 85 S.Ct. 610, 13 L.Ed.2d 550 on remand, 325 I.C.C. 752 (1965). . H.R. 12891, § 5, 93rd Cong., 2d sess. (1974), reprinted in Surface Transportation Legislation: Hearings before the House Comm, on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the Sub-comm. on…
  • Cent. Power & Light Co. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 634 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1980)
    …ision 2), reversed, 321 I.C.C. 582 (1963) (Full Commission), reversed sub nom. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. United States, 229 F.Supp. 572 (S.D.Ohio 1964), vacated per curiam sub nom. Arrow Transport Co. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 379 U.S. 642, 85 S.Ct. 610, 13 L.Ed.2d 550, on remand, 325 I.C.C. 752 (1965). . H.R. 10979, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975), reprinted in H.R.Rep. 94-725, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975). S. 2718, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975), reprinted in S.Rep. 94-499, 94th Cong.,…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw