United States of America, Libellant-Appellee v. Alen W. Hayes

264 F.2d 929, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4901
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedMarch 20, 1959
Docket130, Docket 25250
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 264 F.2d 929 (United States of America, Libellant-Appellee v. Alen W. Hayes) 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
United States of America, Libellant-Appellee v. Alen W. Hayes, 264 F.2d 929, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4901 (2d Cir. 1959).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The United States instituted a libel to recover a civil penalty as provided by 49 U.S.C.A. § 621, repealed August 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 806. The libel charged Allen W. Hayes with violating Airworthiness Directive 57-13-8 and Section 43.20 of the Civil Air Regulations, in a flight made September 27, 1957. This directive required the installation of a device that will prevent landing gear retraction when the aircraft is on the ground. Hayes admits violating the directive, but asserts that it adversely affects the safe operation of aircraft because “a pilot should have the option of deliberate gear retraction in order that he may stop the *930 plane when a sudden emergency demands it.”

Under this state of facts the District Court on a motion for Summary Judgment held that Hayes had failed to comply with the regulations propounded by the Civil Aeronautics Administrator and hence was subject to the statutory penalty. We have no alternative other than to affirm. If Hayes wished to challenge the Airworthiness Directive he could have petitioned the Civil Aeronautics Board for a hearing to review it, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 301, and, if not satisfied that the Administrator acted upon substantial evidence, could have sought judicial review under 49 U.S.C.A. § 646. Accordingly, there is a clear failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See United States v. Ruzicka, 1946, 329 U.S. 287, 67 S.Ct. 207, 91 L.Ed. 290; United States v. Hinman Farms Products, Inc., D.C.N.D.N.Y.1957, 156 F.Supp. 607.

Affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. Seatrain Lines, Inc.
370 F. Supp. 483 (S.D. New York, 1973)
United States v. Pan American Mail Line, Inc.
359 F. Supp. 728 (S.D. New York, 1972)
United States v. Clayton
198 F. Supp. 18 (W.D. Louisiana, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
264 F.2d 929, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-libellant-appellee-v-alen-w-hayes-ca2-1959.