Arrow Airways v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 10495.
| Citation | 87 US App. DC 71,182 F.2d 705 |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 10495.,10495. |
| Parties | ARROW AIRWAYS, Inc., et al., petitioners v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, respondent. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Mr. James D. Graham, Jr., Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for petitioners.
Mr. O. D. Ozment, Attorney, Civil Aeronautics Board, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Emory T. Nunneley, Jr., General Counsel, Civil Aeronautics Board and John H. Wanner, Associate General Counsel, Civil Aeronautics Board, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for respondent.
Before CLARK, BAZELON, and FAHY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner seeks direct review in this court of certain regulations of general applicability and prospective effect issued by the Civil Aeronautics Board.1 The statute governing review of orders of the Civil Aeronautics Board2 is not sufficiently different from that in the Natural Gas Act3 to warrant our distinguishing this from United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 86 U.S.App.D.C. —, 181 F.2d 796. What we said there with regard to the conditions necessary for our review of administrative action, and the availability of other remedies, is also applicable here.
Dismissed.
1 The pertinent regulations of the Civil Aeronautics Board are found in the Board's order dated November 4, 1949, which adopted Amendment No. 1 to Part 242, and Amendment No. 2 to Part 291, Economic Regulations, Civil Aeronautics Board, Regulations Serial No. ER-154 and ER-153. They deal generally with the relations between ticket agents and irregular air carriers. ER-154 prescribes the form of tickets to be used by large irregular carriers, requires that agreements with ticket agents in regard to passenger traffic be reduced to writing, etc. It also provides that the exemption heretofore given large irregular carriers will not be available to the extent that such carriers transport passengers obtained in disregard of such requirements. ER-153 requires the filing with the Board of all contracts entered into between carriers and ticket agents.
3 15 U.S.C.A. § 717r(b).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Investment Co. Institute v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System
...subordinate tribunal has made a record fully encompassing the issues," id. at 317, 181 F.2d at 799. Accord, e. g., Arrow Airways, Inc. v. CAB, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 71, 182 F.2d 705 (construing 49 U.S.C. § 646), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 828, 71 S.Ct. 65, 95 L.Ed. 608 (1950). Nevertheless, in United......
-
City of Rochester v. Bond
..."review of a decision based on evidence presented in a quasi-judicial proceeding before the Commission") And, Arrow Airways, Inc. v. CAB, 87 App.D.C. 71, 182 F.2d 705, Cert. denied, 340 U.S. 828, 71 S.Ct. 65, 95 L.Ed. 608 (1950) (construing 49 U.S.C. § 646), With Deutsche Lufthansa Aktienge......
-
Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft v. CAB
...L.Ed. 607 (1950) (concerning regulatory authority under Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717r(b)); see also Arrow Airways v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 87 U.S.App.D. C. 71, 182 F.2d 705 (1950), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 828, 71 S.Ct. 65, 95 L.Ed. 608 (1951). The United Gas decision was followed in m......
-
Phillips Petroleum Company v. Federal Power Com'n
...68 S.Ct. 431, 92 L.Ed. 568; Isbrandtsen Co., Inc., v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 293, 211 F.2d 51; Arrow Airways, Inc., v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 71, 182 F.2d 705; United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 314, 181 F.2d 796. But, "The ultima......