|
Arrow Transp. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 372 U.S. 658 (1963)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Arrow Transp. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 372 U.S. 658 (1963)
Arrow Transportation Co. v. Southern Railway Co. No. 430 Argued January 10, 1963 Decided April 15, 1963 372 U.S. 658
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
The Interstate Commerce Commission suspended for the maximum statutory period of seven months a schedule of reduced railroad rates on multiple-car grain shipments from certain Mississippi and Ohio River ports to various points in the Southeastern United States, pending a determination as to whether the reduction was lawful. It had not decided that question when the seven-month period expired, and petitioners sued to enjoin respondent railroads from effecting the reductions pending the Commission’s decision. They claimed that application of the new rates would irreparably injure their respective economic interests, particularly because they threatened to force the petitioner barge line out of business. After a brief hearing, the District Court concluded that there was great danger of irreparable harm or injury to petitioners if the proposed rates went into effect, but that it had no jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief extending the period of suspension, because § 15(7) of the Interstate Commerce Act vested exclusive power in the Commission to suspend a proposed change of rates for a limited time. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: the judgment is affirmed. Pp. 659-673.
(a) A review of the history of the suspension power indicates that Congress intended in § 15(7) to vest in the Commission exclusive power to suspend proposed rate changes, and to withdraw from the courts any preexisting power to grant injunctive relief to parties protesting the changes. Pp. 662-669.
(b) The foregoing conclusion is buttressed by a consideration of the practical consequences of survival of an injunction remedy -- including, inter alia, the dangers of judicial intrusion into the administrative domain. Pp. 669-672.
(c) Injunctive relief is not authorized in this case by the National Transportation Policy, which obligates the Commission, not the courts, to balance the interests of competing forms of transportation. Pp. 672-673.
308 F.2d 181, affirmed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Arrow Transp. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 372 U.S. 658 (1963) in 372 U.S. 658 372 U.S. 659. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=2UU8L7W8Z4H2L91.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Arrow Transp. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 372 U.S. 658 (1963), in 372 U.S. 658, page 372 U.S. 659. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=2UU8L7W8Z4H2L91.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Arrow Transp. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 372 U.S. 658 (1963). cited in 1963, 372 U.S. 658, pp.372 U.S. 659. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=2UU8L7W8Z4H2L91.
|