ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. ET AL.
v.
WICHITA BOARD OF TRADE 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 Supreme Court stayed a District Court judgment invalidating railroad in-transit grain inspection charges while the appeal was pending, but conditioned the stay on railroads maintaining detailed records of all charges collected and agreeing to refund those amounts with interest if the lower court's decision was ultimately affirmed. This order preserved the status quo during appellate review while protecting shippers from irreversible loss if they ultimately prevailed on the merits.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
D. C. Kan. On consideration of the appellants’ application for stay, the appellees’ reply to the application, and the affidavits and memoranda filed in support of the application and reply, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) That, subject to the condition set forth in paragraph 2 herein, the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas entered in this matter on June 8, 1972, be and hereby is stayed pending a final determination of the appeal by this Court.
(2) That, as a condition of the foregoing stay, each railroad collecting in-transit grain inspection charges under the challenged tariffs shall immediately take steps, including publication of appropriate provisions in applicable tariffs, to do the following:
(a) keep accurate accounts in detail of all amounts hereafter received during the existence of the stay by reason of in-transit grain inspection charges, specifying by whom and in whose behalf such amounts are paid; and (b) in the event the order suspending the charges is affirmed by this Court, refund (with interest) of such amounts to persons in whose behalf such amounts were paid, without the necessity for such persons to make applications for refunds. In the event this Court’s action should be other than in affirmance of the results reached by the District Court, this Court may make such further order concerning the disposition of the aforesaid amounts as the Court may deem appropriate.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Atchison v. Wichita Bd. of Trade, 412 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1973)…Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases. We have previously stayed the judgment of the District Court on condition that appellant railroads keep accounts of the amounts received from the in-transit charges. 409 U. S. 801 (1972). We hereby direct the District Court to.enter an order, consistent with this opinion, regarding the disposition of those amounts. Such a charge is already made for the first in-transit- inspection in the eastern territory. The proposed rates…
-
The Wichita Bd. OF Trade v. The United States & the Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 706 F.2d 1067 (10th Cir. 1983)…ntil otherwise ordered by the court. 352 F.Supp. 365. (4) —July 7, 1972. Order of Supreme Court staying judgment of the Kansas court until final determination of the railroads’ appeal and requiring the railroads to keep account of charges received. 409 U.S. 801, 93 S.Ct. 24, 34 L.Ed.2d 14. (5) —June 18, 1973. Supreme Court decision on merits affirming lower court’s remand to ICC and reversing that court’s injunction suspending the proposed charges. 412 U.S. 800, 826, 93 S.Ct. 2367, 2384, 37 L.Ed.2d 350.…1 / 4