James F. McManus v. Lake Central Airlines, Inc.

Second Circuit

James F. McManus v. Lake Central Airlines, Inc.

327 F.2d 212, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6754, 1964 Trade Cas. (CCH) 70,996

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 10, 1964

Docket28465_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 327 F.2d 212 (James F. McManus v. Lake Central Airlines, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James F. McManus v. Lake Central Airlines, Inc., 327 F.2d 212, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6754, 1964 Trade Cas. (CCH) 70,996 (2d Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

James F. McManus appeals from a judgment for defendant Lake Central Airlines, Inc., entered on a verdict directed by the trial court pursuant to Rule 50, F.R.Civ.Proc., at the conclusion of all of the evidence. McManus, the proprietor of a travel agency in Levittown, Long Island, had alleged that Lake Central had conspired with other airlines to exclude the plaintiff from the sale of domestic air transportation. At the trial, it became clear that these allegations were wholly predicated on Lake Central’s membership in the Air Transport Association of America, and the resolution of that organization restricting the dealings of member airlines to travel agencies approved by the association.

The directed verdict was entirely proper. The resolution of which McManus complains was approved by the Civil Aeronautics Board pursunt to the predecessor section of 49 U.S.C. § 1382, upon a finding that it was not adverse to the public interest. Under the terms of 49 U.S.C. § 1384, such approval immunized any conduct “authorized, approved, or required” by the resolution from the reach of the antitrust laws. Indeed, at the behest of this very appellant, this court previously reviewed and upheld the Board against identical complaints that the approved practices were unduly restrictive. McManus v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 286 F.2d 414 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 928, 81 S.Ct. 1649, 6 L.Ed. 2d 388 (1961). And in that opinion, which set forth all of the material facts relevant to the present case, we expressly recognized the immunity from antitrust prosecution which CAB approval had afforded.

The appellant is here seeking precisely that relief to which our earlier opinion told him he was not entitled. The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

James F. McManus appeals from a judgment for defendant Lake Central Airlines, Inc., entered on a verdict directed by the trial court pursuant to Rule 50, F.R.Civ.Proc., at the conclusion of all of the evidence. McManus, the proprietor of a travel agency in Levittown, Long Island, had alleged that Lake Central had conspired with other airlines to exclude the plaintiff from the sale of domestic air transportation. At the trial, it became clear that these allegations were wholly predicated on Lake Central’s membership in the Air Transport Association of America, and the resolution of that organization restricting the dealings of member airlines to travel agencies approved by the association.

The directed verdict was entirely proper. The resolution of which McManus complains was approved by the Civil Aeronautics Board pursunt to the predecessor section of 49 U.S.C. § 1382, upon a finding that it was not adverse to the public interest. Under the terms of 49 U.S.C. § 1384, such approval immunized any conduct “authorized, approved, or required” by the resolution from the reach of the antitrust laws. Indeed, at the behest of this very appellant, this court previously reviewed and upheld the Board against identical complaints that the approved practices were unduly restrictive. McManus v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 286 F.2d 414 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 928, 81 S.Ct. 1649, 6 L.Ed. 2d 388 (1961). And in that opinion, which set forth all of the material facts relevant to the present case, we expressly recognized the immunity from antitrust prosecution which CAB approval had afforded.

The appellant is here seeking precisely that relief to which our earlier opinion told him he was not entitled. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

327 F.2d 212, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6754, 1964 Trade Cas. (CCH) 70,996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-f-mcmanus-v-lake-central-airlines-inc-ca2-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack