Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. National Transportation Safety Board

First Circuit

Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. National Transportation Safety Board

670 F.2d 4, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 22239

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJanuary 28, 1982

Docket82-1095

StatusPublished

This text of 670 F.2d 4 (Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. National Transportation Safety Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. National Transportation Safety Board, 670 F.2d 4, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 22239 (1st Cir. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER OF COURT

As a practical matter the issue raised in this case calls for the type of speedy evidentiary hearing that district courts ordinarily provide but which this court (which typically reviews records made elsewhere) is ill-equipped to give. At the same time, there is a serious question about whether this court has jurisdiction. It is allowed to review only National Transpor *5 tation Safety Board “order(s),” 49 U.S.C. § 1903(d) — a term interpreted to reflect the need for “an adequate administrative record” to allow review. Cf. Sima Products Corp. v. McLucas, 612 F.2d 309, 312 (7th Cir. 1980). The district courts, however, have authority to review “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy,” 5 U.S.C. § 704, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This latter term, we believe, is broader than “order” and allows district courts broader scope to review, where the need to develop a record expeditiously is critical, as it is here. Moreover, petitioner’s counsel has informed us that he will be filing a petition for review in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Therefore, confident that petitioner will receive an expedited hearing in the district court, we shall hold our decision in abeyance. We direct the clerk of this court to send a copy of this Order forthwith to the District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

So ordered.

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

ORDER OF COURT

As a practical matter the issue raised in this case calls for the type of speedy evidentiary hearing that district courts ordinarily provide but which this court (which typically reviews records made elsewhere) is ill-equipped to give. At the same time, there is a serious question about whether this court has jurisdiction. It is allowed to review only National Transpor *5 tation Safety Board “order(s),” 49 U.S.C. § 1903(d) — a term interpreted to reflect the need for “an adequate administrative record” to allow review. Cf. Sima Products Corp. v. McLucas, 612 F.2d 309, 312 (7th Cir. 1980). The district courts, however, have authority to review “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy,” 5 U.S.C. § 704, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This latter term, we believe, is broader than “order” and allows district courts broader scope to review, where the need to develop a record expeditiously is critical, as it is here. Moreover, petitioner’s counsel has informed us that he will be filing a petition for review in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Therefore, confident that petitioner will receive an expedited hearing in the district court, we shall hold our decision in abeyance. We direct the clerk of this court to send a copy of this Order forthwith to the District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

670 F.2d 4, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 22239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westinghouse-broadcasting-co-inc-v-national-transportation-safety-board-ca1-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack