Brae Corp. v. U.S., SEA-LAND
Decision Date | 24 August 1984 |
Docket Number | 83-1543,No. 83-1462,SEA-LAND,83-1465,83-1468,83-1490,83-1469,83-1538,83-1466,83-1479,83-1462 |
Parties | BRAE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents, Consolidated Rail Corporation, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Seattle & North Coast Railroad Company, Intervenors. BRAE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents, Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, American Short Line Railroad Association, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route of American Trucking Associations, Inc., Angelina and Neches River Railroad, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, et al., Intervenors. BRAE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents, Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, American Short Line Railroad Association, Freight Users Association of Long Island, Inc., Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Angelina and Neches River Railroad, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, et al., Intervenors. BRAE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Freight Users Association of Long Island, Inc., Southern Pacific Transportation Company, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Intervenors. AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE, INC., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents, Brown Transport Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Freight Users Association of Long Island, Inc., Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route of American Trucking Associations, Inc., Angelina and Neches River Railroad, Brick Association of North Carolina, et al., American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al., National Grain and Feed Association, American Newspaper Publishers Association, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Intervenors. INTERNATIONAL PAPE |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Petitions for Review of Orders of the Interstate Commerce commission.
Robert N. Kharasch, Mark L. Evans, Gerry Levenberg, and John M. Nannes, Washington, D.C., with whom Peter D. Dickson and Deborah M. Gottheil, Washington, D.C., for Brae Corp., Robert N. Kharasch, Olga Boikess, and Edward D. Greenberg, Washington, D.C., for Intern. Paper Co., et al., John F. Donelan, John M. Cleary, Frederic J. Wood, and Nicholas J. Di Michael, Washington, D.C., for Nat. Indus. Transp. League, et al., Carl V. Lyon and James P. Tuite, Washington, D.C., for Itel Rail Corp., Rail Div., et al., Charles H. White, Jr., Washington, D.C., for SYSCO Corp., et al., Gordon P. MacDougall, Washington, D.C., for Patrick W. Simmons, Dickson R. Loos and David H. Baker, Washington, D.C., for Aluminum Ass'n, Inc., Brian C. Mohr, for Bangor and Aroostook R. Co., et al., Andrew P. Goldstein, Washington, D.C., for Nat. Ry. Utilization Corp., et al., John C. Danielson, for Central Vermont RR., et al., Thomas F. McFarland, Jr., and Steven J. Kalish, Chicago, Ill., for Bd. of Trade of the City of Chicago, et al., Peter A. Greene, Washington, D.C., for Angelina and Neches River R. Co., J. Raymond Clark and Mary Todd Foldes, Washington, D.C., for Sandersville R. Co., Hanford O'Hara and Alice C. Saylor, Monroeville, Pa., for Bessemer & Lake Erie R. Co., et al., Robert Gensburg, St. Johnsbury, Vt., for Lamoille Valley R. Co. of Morrisville, Lamoille County, Vermont, Martin W. Bercovici, Washington, D.C., for Rubber Mfrs. Ass'n., Robert A. Cantor and David A. Vaughn, New York City, for E.F. Hutton Credit Corp., Fritz R. Kahn and Russell E. Pommer, Washington, D.C., for Pittsburgh and Lake Erie R. Co., Seattle and North Coast R. Co., and Weyerhaeuser Co., et al., Thomas C. Dorsey, Washington, D.C., for American Short Line RR. Ass'n, and Charles W. Chapman, Washington, D.C., for East Camden & Highland Railroad Company, were on the joint brief, for petitioners and intervenors Brae Corporation, et al., in Nos. 83-1462, 83-1465, 83-1466, 83-1468, 83-1469, 83-1479, 83-1490, 83-1538, 83-1543, 83-1544, 83-1546,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. I.C.C.
...Commission must satisfy when it chooses to impose a new regulatory format over the car hire relationship." Brae Corp. v. United States, 740 F.2d 1023, 1059 (D.C.Cir.1984) (per curiam), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1069, 105 S.Ct. 2149, 85 L.Ed.2d 505 (1985). Specifically, the Commission must take......
-
McCloud v. Testa
...parties engaging in that activity essentially shift some of their costs onto society as a whole. See Brae Corp. v. United States, 740 F.2d 1023, 1056-57 (D.C.Cir.1984) (per curiam) (striking down ICC's regulation that permitted boxcar owners and carriers to escape other ICC regulations if t......
-
Black v. I.C.C.
...and capricious' standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency." Brae Corp. v. United States, 740 F.2d 1023, 1038 (D.C.Cir.1984) (quoting Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 285......
-
Canadian Nat'l Ry. v. Vertis, Inc.
...policy and because the regulations were not needed to protect shippers from an abuse of market power.” Brae Corp. v. United States, 740 F.2d 1023, 1036 (D.C.Cir.1984). In part, the ICC found that “the pervasive pattern of competition between trucks and rails” removed the need to regulate th......
-
Statutory Exemptions for Regulated Industries
...commonly referred to as rate 339. 49 U.S.C. § 10502(a). 340. Id. § 10101. 341. 49 C.F.R. § 1039.14; see Brae Corp. v. United States, 740 F.2d 1023, 1043-44 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (upholding exemption against challenge). 342. 49 C.F.R. § 1090.2. 343. 49 C.F.R. § 1039.10 (agricultural commodities e......
-
Table of Cases
...Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485 (1984), 68 Brady v. NFL, 644 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 2011), 195, 203 Brae Corp. v. United States, 740 F.2d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1984), 332 Brand Name Prescription Drug Antitrust Litig., In re, 186 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 1999), 87 Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 66......