Great Lakes Steel Corp. v. United States

E.D. Michigan

Great Lakes Steel Corp. v. United States

115 F. Supp. 31, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2357, 1953 WL 81402

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan

DecidedSeptember 29, 1953

DocketNo. 6295

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 115 F. Supp. 31 (Great Lakes Steel Corp. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Great Lakes Steel Corp. v. United States, 115 F. Supp. 31, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2357, 1953 WL 81402 (E.D. Mich. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

LEDERLE, Chief Judge.

This case was originally considered by a three-judge District Court, constituted as required by the revised Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. 2321 et seq. The issues involved are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court in that case, Great Lakes Steel Corp. v. United States, D.C., 81 F.Supp. 450. It will be unnecessary to restate them at this time.

The complaint was originally dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The decision of this Court was reversed in Great Lakes Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 U.S. 952, 69 S.Ct. 1530, 93 L.Ed. 1753, in accordance with the ruling in United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 U.S. 426, 69 S.Ct. 1410, 93 L.Ed. 1451, and remanded to the District Court for determination of the merits of the allegations in the complaint. All of the evidence that the parties desired to submit was received during a pre-trial hearing prior to the original decision. Subsequent to the reversal and remand, the parties were permitted to submit, further arguments.

The sole issue before the Court, at this time is to determine whether the Commission’s order is supported by substantial evidence. The sole function of the Court is to determine whether the Commission had acted within its authority. Shields v. Utah Idaho Central R. Co., 305 U.S. 177, 185, 59 S.Ct. 160, 83 L.Ed. 111; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific R. Co., 222 U.S. 541, 547-548, 32 S.Ct. 108, 56 L.Ed. 308; Interstate Commerce Commission v. In[32]*32land Waterways Corp., 319 U.S. 671, 691, 63 S.Ct. 1296, 87 L.Ed. 1655.

The findings of the Commission are supported by substantial evidence, and there was no irregularity . in the proceeding or error in the application of the rules of law. Western Paper Makers’ Chemical Company v. United States, 271 U.S. 268, 271, 46 S.Ct. 500, 70 L.Ed. 941; Skinner & Eddy Corporation v. United States, 249 U.S. 557, 562, 39 S.Ct. 375, 63 L.Ed. 722; New England Divisions Case (Akron, C. & Y. R. Co. v. U. S.), 261 U.S. 184, 204, 438 S.Ct. 270, 67 L.Ed. 605; Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456.

It therefore follows that the complaint must be dismissed, with costs to be taxed.

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

LEDERLE, Chief Judge.

This case was originally considered by a three-judge District Court, constituted as required by the revised Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. 2321 et seq. The issues involved are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court in that case, Great Lakes Steel Corp. v. United States, D.C., 81 F.Supp. 450. It will be unnecessary to restate them at this time.

The complaint was originally dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The decision of this Court was reversed in Great Lakes Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 U.S. 952, 69 S.Ct. 1530, 93 L.Ed. 1753, in accordance with the ruling in United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 U.S. 426, 69 S.Ct. 1410, 93 L.Ed. 1451, and remanded to the District Court for determination of the merits of the allegations in the complaint. All of the evidence that the parties desired to submit was received during a pre-trial hearing prior to the original decision. Subsequent to the reversal and remand, the parties were permitted to submit, further arguments.

The sole issue before the Court, at this time is to determine whether the Commission’s order is supported by substantial evidence. The sole function of the Court is to determine whether the Commission had acted within its authority. Shields v. Utah Idaho Central R. Co., 305 U.S. 177, 185, 59 S.Ct. 160, 83 L.Ed. 111; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific R. Co., 222 U.S. 541, 547-548, 32 S.Ct. 108, 56 L.Ed. 308; Interstate Commerce Commission v. In[32]*32land Waterways Corp., 319 U.S. 671, 691, 63 S.Ct. 1296, 87 L.Ed. 1655.

The findings of the Commission are supported by substantial evidence, and there was no irregularity . in the proceeding or error in the application of the rules of law. Western Paper Makers’ Chemical Company v. United States, 271 U.S. 268, 271, 46 S.Ct. 500, 70 L.Ed. 941; Skinner & Eddy Corporation v. United States, 249 U.S. 557, 562, 39 S.Ct. 375, 63 L.Ed. 722; New England Divisions Case (Akron, C. & Y. R. Co. v. U. S.), 261 U.S. 184, 204, 438 S.Ct. 270, 67 L.Ed. 605; Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456.

It therefore follows that the complaint must be dismissed, with costs to be taxed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 F. Supp. 31, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2357, 1953 WL 81402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/great-lakes-steel-corp-v-united-states-mied-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack