Arrow Transportation Co. v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co.

379 U.S. 642
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 25, 1965
DocketNos. 544, 545
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 379 U.S. 642 (Arrow Transportation Co. v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arrow Transportation Co. v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co., 379 U.S. 642 (1965).

Opinion

*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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

(1998)
83 Op. Att'y Gen. 128 (Maryland Attorney General Reports, 1998)
Central Power & Light Co. v. United States
634 F.2d 137 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. United States
606 F.2d 1131 (D.C. Circuit, 1979)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. United States
397 F. Supp. 607 (W.D. Kentucky, 1975)
Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. v. United States
364 F. Supp. 1239 (W.D. Arkansas, 1973)
Carl Subler Trucking, Inc. v. United States
313 F. Supp. 971 (S.D. Ohio, 1970)
Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co. v. United States
268 F. Supp. 71 (W.D. Kentucky, 1967)
Midwest Truck Lines, Ltd. v. Interstate Commerce Commission
269 F. Supp. 554 (District of Columbia, 1967)
United States v. Saskatchewan Minerals
385 U.S. 94 (Supreme Court, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
379 U.S. 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arrow-transportation-co-v-cincinnati-new-orleans-texas-pacific-railway-scotus-1965.