Willis Shaw Frozen Express, Inc. v. United States

Supreme Court

Willis Shaw Frozen Express, Inc. v. United States

377 U.S. 159, 84 S. Ct. 1154, 12 L. Ed. 2d 211, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 2182

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 4, 1964

Docket201

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 377 U.S. 159 (Willis Shaw Frozen Express, Inc. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Willis Shaw Frozen Express, Inc. v. United States, 377 U.S. 159, 84 S. Ct. 1154, 12 L. Ed. 2d 211, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 2182 (1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission under the grandfather clause of the Transportation Act of 1958, § 7 (c), 72 Stat. 573, 49 U. S. C. § 303 (b)(6), to transport as a common carrier over irregular routes frozen fruits, berries, and vegetables, and frozen seafoods and poultry when transported with such frozen fruits, berries, and vegetables. The Commission granted a certificate which substantially curtailed appellant’s prior operations. 89 M. C. C. 377. The District Court affirmed without opinion.

We think United States v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 315 U. S. 475, requires reversal of the judgment and *292 a remand to the Commission for reconsideration in light of appellant’s status and performance as a common carrier, the transportation characteristics and marketing pattern of these seasonal agricultural products, and the demonstrated ability of appellant to perform the services. Id., at 482-489.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice White dissent, agreeing with the three-judge District Court that the Commission correctly employed the statutory standards prescribed by Congress. “The precise delineation of the area or the specification of localities which may be serviced has been entrusted by the Congress to the Commission.” United States v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 315 U. S. 475, 480. See also Alton R. Co. v. United States, 315 U. S. 15, 22-23.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission under the grandfather clause of the Transportation Act of 1958, § 7 (c), 72 Stat. 573, 49 U. S. C. § 303 (b)(6), to transport as a common carrier over irregular routes frozen fruits, berries, and vegetables, and frozen seafoods and poultry when transported with such frozen fruits, berries, and vegetables. The Commission granted a certificate which substantially curtailed appellant’s prior operations. 89 M. C. C. 377. The District Court affirmed without opinion.

We think United States v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 315 U. S. 475, requires reversal of the judgment and *292 a remand to the Commission for reconsideration in light of appellant’s status and performance as a common carrier, the transportation characteristics and marketing pattern of these seasonal agricultural products, and the demonstrated ability of appellant to perform the services. Id., at 482-489.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice White dissent, agreeing with the three-judge District Court that the Commission correctly employed the statutory standards prescribed by Congress. “The precise delineation of the area or the specification of localities which may be serviced has been entrusted by the Congress to the Commission.” United States v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 315 U. S. 475, 480. See also Alton R. Co. v. United States, 315 U. S. 15, 22-23.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 U.S. 159, 84 S. Ct. 1154, 12 L. Ed. 2d 211, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 2182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willis-shaw-frozen-express-inc-v-united-states-scotus-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack