|
|
Ziffrin, Inc. v. United States, 318 U.S. 73 (1943)
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.
Ziffrin, Inc. v. United States, 318 U.S. 73 (1943)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 318 U.S. 54, click here.
Ziffrin, Inc. v. United States No. 245 Argued December 16, 1942 Decided February 1, 1943 318 U.S. 73
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
Syllabus
At the time of the filing of an application to the Interstate Commerce Commission for a permit under the "grandfather clause" of § 209(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act to continue designated contract carrier operations, and at the time of the hearing by the Commission on the application, § 210 of the Act provided that a certificate as a common carrier and a permit as a contract carrier could not be held by the same carrier except upon a finding by the Commission of consistency with the public interest. Prior to the Commission’s decision on the application, § 210 was amended to provide that, without a similar finding, a certificate as a common carrier and a permit as a contract carrier could not be held by carriers which are under common control.
Held:
1. The Commission was required to make its decision on the application in accordance with the Act as amended. P. 78.
2. The contentions that the applicant was not given proper notice of the hearing, and was denied an opportunity to show compliance with the Act as amended, are unsupported. P. 79.
3. The Commission’s order denying the application on the ground that the applicant was under common control with a certificated common carrier, and that the application could not be granted consistently with the public interest and the national transportation policy, is supported by the evidence. P. 80.
Affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment of a District Court of three Judges refusing to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Ziffrin, Inc. v. United States, 318 U.S. 73 (1943) in 318 U.S. 73 318 U.S. 74. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KR8IRD4KKDQ5BR7.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Ziffrin, Inc. v. United States, 318 U.S. 73 (1943), in 318 U.S. 73, page 318 U.S. 74. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KR8IRD4KKDQ5BR7.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Ziffrin, Inc. v. United States, 318 U.S. 73 (1943). cited in 1943, 318 U.S. 73, pp.318 U.S. 74. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KR8IRD4KKDQ5BR7.
|