Citation network
United States Vs. Icc
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 20, 1949
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
-
U.S. 426 (1949) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. ICCSearch
-
U.S. 426 (1949) United States v. InterstateSearch
-
have been considered on its merits. Pp. 337 U. S. 428 -430. 1. Although the case be that of United States v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Act. Accordingly, the Commission denied reparations and ordered the complaint dismissed. United States v. AberdeenSearch
-
the parties to determine whether a justiciable case or controversy is presented. While this case is United States v. UnitedSearch
-
to press a just claim which could be vindicated only by court challenge of a Commission order. See United States v. SanSearch
-
United States v. SanSearch
-
Tin Co., 125 U. S. 273 , 125 U. S. 279 . See also United Page 337 U. S. 432 States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Rochester Telephone Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
El Dorado Oil Works v. UnitedSearch
-
Shields v. Utah-IdahoSearch
-
reviewable upon charges that the Commission had exceeded its lawful powers. See, e.g., Interstate Commerce Commission v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Meeker v. LehighSearch
-
Valley R. Co., 236 U. S. 412 , 236 U. S. 430 . And see Pennsylvania R. Co. v. WeberSearch
-
railroads that their suggested interpretation of the section is required by this Court's holding in Standard Oil Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
doctrine. This doctrine was wholly abandoned in Rochester Telephone Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
in Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. BradySearch
-
Terminal Warehouse Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
actions in the district court. But it has been established doctrine since this Court's holding in Texas & P. R. Co. v. AbileneSearch
-
Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. BradySearch
-
Ashland Coal & Ice Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
the Commission order was supported by substantial evidence, and was in accordance with law. Ashland Coal & Ice Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
only a question of the reasonableness of rates could have an adverse order reviewed by a court, Skinner & Eddy Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
for that administrative determination plus reparations could get no judicial review at all. Terminal Warehouse Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Southern R. Co. v. TiftSearch
-
are not likely to be of sufficient public importance to justify use of the three-judge procedure. See United States v. GriffinSearch
-
U. S. 226 , 303 U. S. 233 , 303 U. S. 234 -237. But cf. El Dorado Oil Works v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. JonesSearch
-
Mr. Justice Cardozo so treated the Standard Oil holding in ICC v. UnitedSearch
-
interpretation. Terminal Warehouse v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
See cases collected in Rochester Telephone Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 307 U. S. 125 , 307 U. S. 139 , n. 22, and Armour & Co. v. AltonSearch
-
Skinner & Eddy Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
case to justify a court in staying further judicial proceedings to await Commission action. Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
The negative order doctrine was first adopted by this Court in Procter & Gamble Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
See Procter & Gamble Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Texas & P. R. Co. v. AbileneSearch
-
Ayrshire Collieries Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Phillips v. UnitedSearch
-
Standard Oil Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 235 , in which the bar of the Interstate Commerce Act to such review was expounded, and Brady v. UnitedSearch
-
summarily affirmed without argument, so definitely had the Standard Oil case settled the matter. Allison & Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
by a private shipper in a suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Great Lakes Steel Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Labor Board v. CheneySearch
-
Constitution requires judicial review of a reparation order by the Commission. Such a notion is precluded by Cary v. CurtisSearch
-
is implied in the guaranty of due process of law. Ng Fung Ho v. WhiteSearch
-
Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, speaking for the Court in Amalgamated Utility Workers v. ConsolidatedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial