Anchor Line Limited v. Federal Maritime Commission, No. 16257.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtBAZELON, BASTIAN and BURGER, Circuit
Citation299 F.2d 124
Decision Date01 February 1962
Docket NumberNo. 16257.
PartiesANCHOR LINE LIMITED et al., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents.

299 F.2d 124 (1962)

ANCHOR LINE LIMITED et al., Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents.

No. 16257.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued December 6, 1961.

Decided February 1, 1962.


299 F.2d 125

Mr. Ronald A. Capone, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Elmer C. Maddy, New York City, and Robert H. Binder, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for petitioners.

Mr. Edward Schmeltzer, Federal Maritime Commission, with whom Messrs. Robert E. Mitchell, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Federal Maritime Commission, and Irwin A. Seibel, Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for respondents. Mr. Richard A. Solomon, Dept. of Justice, also entered an appearance for respondent United States.

Before BAZELON, BASTIAN and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

BAZELON, Circuit Judge.

In a report and order, decided December 14, 1959, and served March 2, 1960, the Federal Maritime Commission held that allegations of a complaint, charging petitioners with violations of § 15 of the Shipping Act, had not been sustained. After the complainants in that case filed a review petition in this Court, the Commission reopened the proceedings. Subsequently the Commission moved to dismiss the petition, but its motion was denied. Upon the original record and oral argument, the Commission entered a "second report and order," decided January 23, 1961, and served the following day, wherein it vacated its first report and order and held that petitioners had engaged in activities in violation of § 15 of the Act. Petitioners bring the instant petition to review and set aside the "second report and order."

Petitioners contend first that the Commission lacked authority to reopen the proceedings because a petition to review the first order was then pending in this Court.1 We think, however, that the pendency of a review petition does not automatically bar reopening of an administrative proceeding. Wrather-Alvarez Broadcasting Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm., 101 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 248 F.2d 646 (1957). See Frontier Airlines Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 78, 259 F.2d 808 (1958); WORZ, Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm., 106 U.S.App.D.C. 14, 268 F.2d 889 (1959). It is true that when an agency seeks to reconsider its action, it should move the court to remand or to hold the case in abeyance pending reconsideration by the agency.2 We do not condone the failure to follow that procedure. But since this failure...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Greater Boston Television Corporation v. FCC, No. 17785
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 29 Diciembre 1971
    ...if there is to be provision for further administrative consideration. 28 U.S.C. § 2347(c); Anchor Line Ltd. v. FMC, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 40, 299 F.2d 124 (1962); McClatchy Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 199, 239 F.2d 19 (1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 918, 77 S.Ct. 664, 1 L.Ed.2d 665 T......
  • United States v. Anchor Line, Ltd.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 17 Julio 1964
    ...directing the defendants to desist from the violations found. See Anchor Line, Ltd. v. Federal Maritime Commission, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 40, 299 F.2d 124 (1962), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 922, 82 S.Ct. 1563, 8 L.Ed.2d 503 (1962). Thereupon, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice for ......
  • Citizens against Pellissippi v. Mineta, No. 02-6536.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 7 Julio 2004
    ...court had granted the Commission's motion for remand for purposes of reconsideration); see also Anchor Line Ltd. v. Fed. Maritime Comm'n, 299 F.2d 124, 125 (D.C.Cir.[1962]) (noting that "when an agency seeks to reconsider its action, it should move the court to remand or to hold the ca......
  • Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, Civil Action No. 07-1756(RCL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 11 Junio 2008
    ...(D.D.C.1987) (citing Trujillo v. Gen, Elec. Co., 621 F.2d 1084, 1086 (10th Cir. 1980)); see also Anchor Line Ltd. v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 299 F.2d 124, 125 (D.C.Cir. 1962) (stating that an agency wishing to reconsider its action, should move the court to remand or hold the case in abeyance pen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Greater Boston Television Corporation v. FCC, No. 17785
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 29 Diciembre 1971
    ...if there is to be provision for further administrative consideration. 28 U.S.C. § 2347(c); Anchor Line Ltd. v. FMC, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 40, 299 F.2d 124 (1962); McClatchy Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 199, 239 F.2d 19 (1956), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 918, 77 S.Ct. 664, 1 L.Ed.2d 665 T......
  • United States v. Anchor Line, Ltd.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 17 Julio 1964
    ...directing the defendants to desist from the violations found. See Anchor Line, Ltd. v. Federal Maritime Commission, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 40, 299 F.2d 124 (1962), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 922, 82 S.Ct. 1563, 8 L.Ed.2d 503 (1962). Thereupon, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice for ......
  • Citizens against Pellissippi v. Mineta, No. 02-6536.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 7 Julio 2004
    ...court had granted the Commission's motion for remand for purposes of reconsideration); see also Anchor Line Ltd. v. Fed. Maritime Comm'n, 299 F.2d 124, 125 (D.C.Cir.[1962]) (noting that "when an agency seeks to reconsider its action, it should move the court to remand or to hold the ca......
  • Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, Civil Action No. 07-1756(RCL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 11 Junio 2008
    ...(D.D.C.1987) (citing Trujillo v. Gen, Elec. Co., 621 F.2d 1084, 1086 (10th Cir. 1980)); see also Anchor Line Ltd. v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 299 F.2d 124, 125 (D.C.Cir. 1962) (stating that an agency wishing to reconsider its action, should move the court to remand or hold the case in abeyance pen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT