Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

icc Vs. City of Jersey City

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 29, 1944

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

58 entries 2 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. Hecht Co. Vs. Bowles US Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1944
  2. Davies Warehouse Co. Vs. Bowles US Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1944
  3. ICC v. City
    Search
  4. of Jersey City - 322 U.S. 503 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court ICC v. City
    Search
  5. of Jersey City, 322 U.S. 503 (1944) Interstate Commerce Commission v. City
    Search
  6. the courts to override the normal discretion of the Commission in granting or refusing rehearings. Following Vinson v. Washington
    Search
  7. grounds of denial to be sustained by evidence and to be within the Commission's discretion. Hudson & Manhattan R. Co. v. United
    Search
  8. and held that, being supported by evidence, the judgment of the Commission was final. Hudson & Manhattan R. Co. v. United
    Search
  9. Federal Power Commission v. Hope
    Search
  10. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union
    Search
  11. Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United
    Search
  12. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United
    Search
  13. In Atchison, T. & S.F. R. Co. v. United
    Search
  14. U. S. 261 -262. The Court, however, promptly restricted that decision to its special facts, United States v. Northern
    Search
  15. Pacific R. Co., 288 U. S. 490 , and it stands virtually alone. In Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United
    Search
  16. St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United
    Search
  17. Acker v. United
    Search
  18. of the factors suggested by the appellants, and that a new cost study was unnecessary. Illinois Commerce Commission v. United
    Search
  19. in an opposite direction, the inquiry demanded here is of the same nature. See also Georgia Public Service Commission v. United
    Search
  20. Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville
    Search
  21. Broadcasting Co., 309 U. S. 134 , 309 U. S. 142 . Cf. American Bridge Co. v. Commission
    Search
  22. Such procedure may be adopted where it is appropriate to carry out the provisions of an act. Federal Power Commission v. Natural
    Search
  23. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Labor
    Search
  24. very similar character to those alleged here, require its return for reconsideration. Group of Institutional Investors v. Chicago
    Search
  25. Ecker v. Western
    Search
  26. and seems to be almost universally applied on other federal courts. United States ex rel. Maine Potato Growers Assn. v. Interstate
    Search
  27. Union Stock Yards Co. v. United
    Search
  28. American Commission Co. v. United
    Search
  29. R.C.A. Communications, Inc. v. United
    Search
  30. States, 43 F.Supp. 851, 858. Central & South West Utilities Co. v. Securities
    Search
  31. Koppers United Co. v. Securities
    Search
  32. Colorado Radio Corp. v. Federal
    Search
  33. Red River Broadcasting Co. v. Federal
    Search
  34. did no such thing. The legislative history of relevant provisions of the Act was reviewed in Davies Warehouse Co. v. Bowles
    Search
  35. on what party invokes it. It is as narrow now as it was when appealed to by the Company. Cf. Hudson & Manhattan R. Co. v. United
    Search
  36. the normal discretion of the Commission in granting or refusing rehearings, we have already spoken in Vinson v. Washington
    Search
  37. on April 20, 1943. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS. I would decide this case differently. I think this decision and Vinson v. Washington
    Search
  38. of inflation control and that agency is allowed to intervene in the proceedings. As I stated in my dissent in Vinson v. Washington
    Search
  39. eventually undermine the dam. But, though I disagree with the result reached, I think it is precisely what Vinson v. Washington
    Search
  40. Gas Light Co. intended. That case and Davies Warehouse Co. v. Bowles
    Search
  41. U.S. Supreme Court ICC v. City
    Search
  42. Interstate Commerce Commission v. City
    Search
  43. Following Vinson v. Washington
    Search
  44. Hudson & Manhattan R. Co. v. United
    Search
  45. United States v. Northern
    Search
  46. In Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United
    Search
  47. Illinois Commerce Commission v. United
    Search
  48. Georgia Public Service Commission v. United
    Search
  49. Cf. American Bridge Co. v. Commission
    Search
  50. Federal Power Commission v. Natural
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial