Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Consolo Vs. Fmc

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 22, 1966

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

73 entries 73 unlinked
Show
  1. U.S. 607 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Consolo v. FMC
    Search
  2. U.S. 607 (1966) Consolo v. Federal
    Search
  3. or in part, since the adequacy of a reparation award cannot be challenged in an enforcement proceeding, United States v. Interstate
    Search
  4. and the amount of reparations, whether considered as a consolidated appeal or as an intervenor's cross-claim. ICC v. Atlantic
    Search
  5. denying a shipper's reparation claim is subject to direct review at the instance of the shipper, United States v. Interstate
    Search
  6. order would be wholly unreviewable unless the shipper is permitted to bring an appeal. See Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United
    Search
  7. States, 307 U. S. 125 . Likewise, in D. L. Piazza Co. v. West
    Search
  8. U.S. 839, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was of the opinion that the principles of United States v. Interstate
    Search
  9. to consider Consolo's appeal. As for Flota's appeal, much of what we have said in Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Atlantic
    Search
  10. by preventing the carrier from emasculating the enforcement action that we concluded in Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Atlantic
    Search
  11. Cf. United States v. Interstate
    Search
  12. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. Labor
    Search
  13. Labor Board v. Columbian
    Search
  14. evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence. Labor Board v. Nevada
    Search
  15. Keele Hair & Scalp Specialists, Inc. v. FTC
    Search
  16. in light of the standard of review established by the Administrative Procedure Act. Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor
    Search
  17. Labor Board v. Walton
    Search
  18. standard is not hard to apply in this instance, we think this controversy had better terminate now. See O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon
    Search
  19. Consolo v. Grace
    Search
  20. Line, supra, and Banana Distributors, Inc. v. Grace
    Search
  21. the law that a litigant is absolved from liability for that time during which his litigation is pending. Labor Board v. Electric
    Search
  22. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Sloss-Sheffield
    Search
  23. denied shipping space. Such a loss is real, and it is certainly compensable under the Shipping Act. See McLean & Co. v. Denver
    Search
  24. Roberto Hernandez, Inc. v. Arnold
    Search
  25. Schiffahrtsgesellschaft, M.B.H., 116 F.2d 849, cert. denied sub nom. Compania Espanola de Navegacion Maritima, S.A. v. Roberto
    Search
  26. Philip R. Consolo v. Grace
    Search
  27. Banana Distributors, Inc. v. Grace
    Search
  28. only under terms of common carriage. This decision was reversed and remanded by the Second Circuit, Grace Line, Inc. v. Federal
    Search
  29. Much of what we said in Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Atlantic
    Search
  30. of judicial economy and fairness to all the parties lie behind the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction, Moore v. New
    Search
  31. Siler v. Louisville
    Search
  32. See our discussion of the defenses available to a carrier in an enforcement action at Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Atlantic
    Search
  33. et seq., and a long line of Supreme Court decisions, clearly indicate. See, e.g., Universal Camera Corp. v. National
    Search
  34. United States v. Carolina
    Search
  35. See United States v. Carlo
    Search
  36. Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. O'Leary
    Search
  37. considered as a whole had been applied by some reviewing courts even before Congress acted. See Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor
    Search
  38. See Federal Trade Comm'n v. Mary
    Search
  39. Labor Board v. Southland
    Search
  40. Far East Conference v. United
    Search
  41. United States Navigation Co., Inc. v. Cunard
    Search
  42. See Labor Board v. Seven-Up
    Search
  43. Securities & Exchange Comm'n v. Chenery
    Search
  44. Phelps Dodge Corp v. Labor
    Search
  45. Board, 313 U. S. 177 . See also Federal Security Administrator v. Quaker
    Search
  46. See Grace Line, Inc. v. Skips
    Search
  47. S Viking Line, 7 F.M.C. 432. See also Johnston Seed Co. v. United
    Search
  48. Boston Wool Trade Assn. v. Director
    Search
  49. practices by the carriers to be unreasonable only prospectively. See also Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Coal Co. v. Delaware
    Search
  50. upon an agency declaration, later reversed, that specifically authorized particular behavior. See Arizona Grocery Co. v. Atchison
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial