Citation network
Aberdeen and Rockfish R. Co. Vs. Scrap
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 24, 1975
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
- Distinguished
-
Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. SCRAPSearch
-
U.S. 289 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. SCRAPSearch
-
U.S. 289 (1975) Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Co. v. StudentsSearch
-
and determined by a three-judge court, and relief was granted. On direct appeal, this Court reversed in United States v. SCRAPSearch
-
terminate that proceeding without having done so. Such argument is not only contrary to the holding in United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
this Court reversed, holding that, under the doctrine of Arrow Transportation Co. v. SouthernSearch
-
the ICC exclusive power to suspend rate increases pending final determination of their lawfulness. United States v. SCRAPSearch
-
vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the cases for reconsideration in light of Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. WichitaSearch
-
The court first rejected the applicability of the line of lower court cases, beginning with Algoma Coal & Coke Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
court noted that this Court had divided evenly in 400 U. S. 73 (1970) in affirming Atlantic City Electric Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 306 F.Supp. 338 (SDNY 1969), and Alabama Power Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
not otherwise hold, and that the ICC is not required to hold hearings in a general revenue proceeding, United States v. FloridaSearch
-
while claiming that it could have, and probably should have, done so notwithstanding Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. WichitaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Mitchell v. DonovanSearch
-
Gunn v. UniversitySearch
-
Algoma Coal & Coke Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Koppers Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Florida Citrus Comm'n v. UnitedSearch
-
Atlantic City Electric Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Electronic Industries Assn. v. UnitedSearch
-
particular rate, but to the reasonableness of the Page 422 U. S. 312 increases in general. In United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
Id. at 290 U. S. 77 . Proceedings such as that described in United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
rates, nor does the order constitute a prescription of rates within the meaning of the decision in Arizona Grocery Co. v. AtchisonSearch
-
the reasonableness of the increases as applied to certain broad categories of charges. In Algoma Coal & Coke Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
the rate increases, and that the courts had no power to suspend if the ICC did not do so. Board of Railroad Comm'rs v. GreatSearch
-
the courts have declined to rule on the issue posed for the reason that the ICC had not yet addressed it. Koppers Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
and 15. Atlantic City Electric Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
rate -- as is a decision not to suspend a particular rate pending investigation. See Algoma Coal Coke Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
argument fails because the court below did not enjoin collection of the rates. The rule of Arrow Transportation Co. v. SouthernSearch
-
this it proceeded to do, and we perceive no basis for affirming the District Court's decision in this respect. v. EmphasizingSearch
-
which is required by NEPA, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. MortonSearch
-
and the inquiry, true to our decision in United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
Ex parte 281 without having done so. This argument, however, stumbles over the holding in United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
issues in that proceeding before the decision of the court below. Thus, even if NEPA -- in the face of United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
Together with No. 73-1971, United States et al. v. StudentsSearch
-
of primary jurisdiction and three on the ground that such relief is barred by the doctrine of Arrow Transportation Co. v. SouthernSearch
-
orders of the ICC. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Ayrshire Collieries Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
The reviser's notes, which are authoritative in the construction of the 1948 revision, United States v. NationalSearch
-
which is the Urgent Deficiencies Appropriations Act. Under the longstanding principle of United States v. RyderSearch
-
now repealed. At oral argument, SCRAP contended that, under United States v. GriffinSearch
-
Id. at 303 U. S. 234 . Insofar as it rested on the negative order doctrine of Procter & Gamble Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 225 U. S. 282 (1912), Griffin is no longer the law. United States v. JonesSearch
-
Rochester Tel. Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
to ICC orders entered under the Railway Mail Pay Act, which are, in essence, suits for money, see United States v. ICCSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. SCRAPSearch
-
Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Co. v. StudentsSearch
-
United States v. LouisianaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial