UNITED STATES ET AL.
v.
SASKATCHEWAN MINERALS
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 Supreme Court reversed a district court judgment that set aside an Interstate Commerce Commission order dismissing a complaint about allegedly preferential shipping rates, holding that the district court improperly restricted the Commission's ability to reopen proceedings and receive additional evidence on remand. The Court held that while the district court correctly set aside the Commission's order on the merits, it exceeded its authority by instructing the Commission to grant relief without allowing the Commission to reconsider the entire case and receive new evidence relevant to whether the challenged rates violated the Interstate Commerce Act.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
These appeals are from an amended judgment of a three-judge district court, 253 F. Supp. 504, which set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission dismissing appellee’s complaint, 325 I.
C. C. 621, and remanded the case to the Commission “for further proceedings with instructions to grant relief” to the appellee “in accordance with the opinion heretofore entered by this court on December 8, 1965, and the Supplemental Memorandum Decision entered by this Court on March 3, 1966.” Accepting the District Court’s decision to set aside the Commission’s order on the merits, appellants challenge that portion of the judgment which instructs the Commission to grant relief to the appellee and precludes the Commission from reopening the proceedings for the receipt of additional evidence relevant to the question whether the rates challenged by the appellee are in fact unreasonably preferential in violation of § 3 (1) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.
S. C. § 3 (1).
We agree with the appellants that, under the circumstances present here, this restriction is an improper limitation on the Commission’s duty to reconsider the entire case. Arrow Transp. Co. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T.
P. R. Co., 379 U. S.
642.
Accordingly, the. judgment of the District Court is vacated and the cases are remanded to the District Court with instructions to enter an order remanding the case to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with the District Court’s opinion of December 8, 1965.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trailways OF NEW England, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 412 F.2d 926 (1st Cir. 1969)…nation, the agencies and courts must require substantial proof of the actual economic need for any particular discriminatory fare.17 See generally, [*935] Saskatchewan Minerals v. United States, W.D.Wash., 1965, 253 F.Supp. 504, vacated and remanded 385 U.S. 94, 87 S.Ct. 254, 17 L.Ed.2d 192; Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. v. United States, N.D.Ill., 1963, 218 F.Supp. 359, 367, 374-376. See also American Trucking Assoc. v. FCC, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 236, 1966, 377 F. 2d 121, cert. denied 386 U.S. 943, 87 S.Ct. 973, 17…
-
Nat'l Ass'n OF Motor BUS Owners & Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States, 460 F.2d 561 (2d Cir. 1972)…, “ends when an error of law is laid bare. At that point the matter once more goes to the Commission for reconsideration.” FPC v. Idaho Power Co., 344 U.S. 17, 20, 73 S.Ct. 85, 87, 97 L.Ed. 15 (1952). See also United States v. Saskatchewan Minerals, 385 U.S. 94, 95, 87 S.Ct. 254, 17 L.Ed.2d 192 (1966); FTC v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U.S. 37, 55, 68 S.Ct. 822, 92 L.Ed. 1196 (1948). Having decided that the FCC had failed to find that unlimited Telpak sharing was fair, just, and reasonable, as the statute requir…1 / 2
-
ASG Indus., Inc. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 548 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1977)…iew Board has given due consideration to applicable legal standards or its own findings of fact in the determination of this question. CONCLUSIONS Accordingly, the Commission’s decision must be vacated and remanded. U. S. v. Saskatchewan Minerals, 385 U.S. 94, 87 S.Ct. 254, 17 L.Ed.2d 192 (1966). It is not enough for an administrative agency to assert “expertise” as a defense for all seasons. Where, as here, an agency has adopted all the findings of fact of its administrative law judge and then reached…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Arrow Transp. Co. v. Cincinnati, 379 U.S. 642 (U.S. 1965)