Mobil Tank Car Service v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America
This text of 871 F.2d 155 (Mobil Tank Car Service v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
871 F.2d 155
276 U.S.App.D.C. 358
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
MOBIL TANK CAR SERVICE, Petitioner,
v.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION and United States of America,
Respondents.
No. 88-1639.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
March 24, 1989.
Before HARRY T. EDWARDS, and R.B. GINSBURG, Circuit Judges, FRANK A. KAUFMAN, United States Senior District Judge*.
JUDGMENT
The petition was considered on the record from the Interstate Commerce Commission and on the briefs and oral arguments of counsel. The Court concludes that appropriate disposition of the case does not warrant an opinion. See D.C.Cir. Rule 14(c).
It is settled law that the Commission is not required to award a refund if it finds a practice to be unreasonable. See National Insulation Transp. Comm. v. ICC, 683 F.2d 533 (D.C.Cir.1982). The Commission has "broad discretion" in fashioning remedies and this court's review is narrow. Id. at 541. Simply put, "[i]f the Commission has not abused its discretion in fashioning a remedy, we must affirm its decision." Id.
We find that the Commission properly looked to the equities of the situation and reasonably concluded that pre-complaint reparations were not necessary. Even though the equities could have been weighed differently, there is nothing to indicate that the Commission abused its discretion in weighing the equities as it did. It is therefore
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition for review be denied.
Sitting by designation pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 294(d)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
871 F.2d 155, 276 U.S. App. D.C. 358, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 3905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mobil-tank-car-service-v-interstate-commerce-commi-cadc-1989.