Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Reiter Vs. Cooper

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 01, 1992

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

55 entries 2 linked 53 unlinked
Show
  1. Heckler Vs. Ringer US Supreme Court · May 14, 1984
  2. Louisville Cement Co. Vs. Icc US Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1918
  3. U.S. 258 (1992) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Reiter Et Al. V. Cooper
    Search
  4. b)(3) is not applicable here since petitioners' claims seek merely 259 recoupment. See United States v. Western
    Search
  5. avoidance of the tariff rate through claims and defenses that are specifically accorded by the ICA itself. Grancer v. Lowden
    Search
  6. judgment in that claimant's favor, this Court cannot say that insolvency is an absolute bar. Gurtiss- Wright Gorp. v. General
    Search
  7. the reasonableness issue. I In many ways, this is a sequel to our decision in Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. Primary
    Search
  8. Southern Constr. Co. v. Pickard
    Search
  9. Recoupment claims are generally not barred by a statute of limitations so long as the main action is timely. See Bull v. United
    Search
  10. is no reason not to apply this principle to suits under the ICA, and we have indeed already done so. In United States v. Western
    Search
  11. U. S., at 71. See Glama Dress Co. v. Mid-South
    Search
  12. setoff statute, but a general principle of recoupment applicable in other contexts. See Distribution Services, Ltd. v. Eddie
    Search
  13. East 60th Owners, Inc. 265 v. Bonner
    Search
  14. Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. United
    Search
  15. See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey
    Search
  16. Cold Metal Process Co. v. United
    Search
  17. Foundry Co., 351 U. S. 445 (1956). This power is largely discretionary, see CurtissWright Corp. v. General
    Search
  18. Lee v. Schweiker
    Search
  19. and defenses such as ignorance, estoppel, or prior agreement to a different rate. See Texas & Pacific R. Go. v. Mugg
    Search
  20. Louisville & Nashville R. Go. v. Maxwell
    Search
  21. Pittsburgh, c., C. & S. L. R. Go. v. Fink
    Search
  22. See T. 1. M. E. Inc. v. United
    Search
  23. effect of the filed rate doctrine over reparations counterclaims is not established by our opinion in Grancer v. Lowden
    Search
  24. before they were sued in district court, see Reply Brief for Petitioners 13 and Brief for Respondents 18, in Grancer v. Lowden
    Search
  25. Brief for Respondents 23. See also Milne Truck Lines, Inc. v. Makita
    Search
  26. similar theory). That argument would have merit if the holding in United States ex rel. Louisville Cement Co. v. ICC
    Search
  27. Ricci v. Chicago
    Search
  28. Port of Boston Marine Terminal Assn. v. Rederiaktiebolaget
    Search
  29. United States v. Western
    Search
  30. Dorado Terminal Co., 308 U. S. 422 , 433 (1940), which in turn cited Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  31. id., at 267. 269 without prejudice. See Carnation Co. v. Pacific
    Search
  32. Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  33. and until that recourse is exhausted, suit is premature and must be dismissed. See Myers v. Bethlehem
    Search
  34. that to be at least a reasonable interpretation of the statute, and hence a binding one. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural
    Search
  35. and tariff rates not disapproved by the ICC are legal rates, binding on both the shipper and the carrier. See Keogh v. Chicago
    Search
  36. Arizona Grocery Co. v. Atchison
    Search
  37. Lowden v. Simonds-Shields-Lonsdale
    Search
  38. Syllabus Reiter Et Al. V. Cooper
    Search
  39. See United States v. Western
    Search
  40. Grancer v. Lowden
    Search
  41. Gurtiss- Wright Gorp. v. General
    Search
  42. Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. Primary
    Search
  43. See Bull v. United
    Search
  44. In United States v. Western
    Search
  45. See Glama Dress Co. v. Mid-South
    Search
  46. See Distribution Services, Ltd. v. Eddie
    Search
  47. CurtissWright Corp. v. General
    Search
  48. See Texas & Pacific R. Go. v. Mugg
    Search
  49. C. & S. L. R. Go. v. Fink
    Search
  50. M. E. Inc. v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial