|
|
Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier, 476 U.S. 409 (1986)
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.
Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier, 476 U.S. 409 (1986)
Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc. No. 85-21 Argued March 3, 1986 Decided May 27, 1986 476 U.S. 409
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioner shippers brought class actions in Federal District Court against respondent motor carriers and respondent ratemaking bureau, alleging that, during the years 1966 through 1981, respondents engaged in a conspiracy, in violation of the Sherman Act, to fix rates for transporting freight between the United States and Canada without complying with an agreement filed by the bureau with, and approved by, the Interstate Commerce Commission. Petitioners sought treble damages, measured by the difference between the allegedly higher rates they paid and the rates they would have paid in a freely competitive market, and also sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court dismissed the complaints on the authority of Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co., 260 U.S. 156, wherein it was held that a private shipper could not recover treble damages under § 7 of the Sherman Act in connection with ICC-filed tariffs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal as to the treble damages claims.
Held: Petitioners are not entitled to bring a treble damages antitrust action. Keogh, supra. Pp. 415-423.
(a) Nothing in the Reed-Bulwinkle Act or in its legislative history indicates that Congress intended to change or supplant the Keogh rule. Similarly, there is no evidence that Congress, in enacting the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, intended to change the Keogh rule. And cases like Carnation Co. v. Pacific Westbound Conference, 383 U.S. 213, emphasizing the necessity to strictly construe immunity of collective ratemaking activities from antitrust laws, do not render Keogh invalid. Pp. 417-422.
(b) The various developments that have occurred since Keogh -- the development of class actions, the emergence of precedents permitting treble damages even when there is an available regulatory remedy, greater sophistication in evaluating damages, and the development of procedures in which judicial proceedings can be stayed pending regulatory proceedings -- are insufficient to overcome the strong presumption of continued validity that adheres in the judicial interpretation of a statute. P. 423.
760 F.2d 1347, affirmed.
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O’CONNOR, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 424.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier, 476 U.S. 409 (1986) in 476 U.S. 409 476 U.S. 410. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=YT75S7472MEFZRZ.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier, 476 U.S. 409 (1986), in 476 U.S. 409, page 476 U.S. 410. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=YT75S7472MEFZRZ.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier, 476 U.S. 409 (1986). cited in 1986, 476 U.S. 409, pp.476 U.S. 410. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=YT75S7472MEFZRZ.
|