United States ex rel. Maine Potato Growers & Shippers Ass'n v. Interstate Commerce Commission
This text of 2 D.C. 57 (United States ex rel. Maine Potato Growers & Shippers Ass'n v. Interstate Commerce Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[58]*58MEMO. OPINION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
In my opinion, the writ of mandamus must be denied. The writ is only justified where it clearly appears there has been a failure to perform a duty or exercise a function plainly required by law. I think the record does not disclose any such failure. On the contrary it seems fairly to show that the Commission, upon taking jurisdiction of the controversy presented by the complaint, proceeded in a regular way to hear and determine the case, giving consideration to all those factors legally requisite as a basis for its conclusions that the rates were not unreasonable, prejudicial or otherwise unlawful, and that its actions upon the original complaint and the petition for rehearing were reached without abuse, in the exercise of its judgment and discretion. If the Commission in its consideration of those matters failed to give due weight to the particular factors, and the evidence bearing thereon, as stressed by relators, or otherwise erred in its judgment concerning the facts or the law, the remedy, of course, is not by mandamus.
In conformity with these views an order will be entered denying the writ and dismissing the petition.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 D.C. 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-maine-potato-growers-shippers-assn-v-interstate-dc-1935.