Civil Aeronautics Board v. Hermann
| Decision Date | 06 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 540,540 |
| Citation | 353 U.S. 322,1 L.Ed.2d 852,77 S.Ct. 804 |
| Parties | CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Petitioner, v. Ida Mae HERMANN et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
See 354 U.S. 927, 77 S.Ct. 1376.
Solicitor General J. Lee Rankin, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner.
Mr. Roland E. Ginsburg, Los Angeles, Cal., for the respondents.
Petitioner had instituted an administrative enforcement proceeding against the respondents, a group of individuals and business entities operating as the 'Skycoach' air travel system. The Board's complaint charged violation of its regulations as well as of the Civil Aeronautics Act and sought certain revocation and cease-and-desist orders against respondents. In the course of the proceedings, the Hearing Examiner issued a number of sub- poenas duces tecum calling for the production of certain categories of documents of the respondent companies covering specified periods of time. On a motion to quash on the grounds, inter alia, that the subpoenas were vague, excessively broad in scope, and oppressive, both the Hearing Examiner and the Board found that the subpoenas described the documents to be produced with sufficient particularity, were reasonable in scope and were not oppressive. Upon respondents' continued refusal to honor the subpoenas, petitioner filed this enforcement proceeding. Initially the trial judge continued the cause for 10 days 'on condition that respondents * * * make the documents specified in the administrative subpenas * * * available immediately to the representatives of the Civil Aeronautics Board for examination and copying at the usual places of business of the named respondents * * *.' Upon the expiration of this period, the court, on a showing that respondents had not complied with this condition, entered an order of enforcement allowing 'a sufficient length of time between dates for the production of the documents * * * so that the respondents will not be deprived of all of their books and records at the same time.' The court found that it could not say 'that any of the documents or things called for in any of the subpoenas are immaterial or irrelevant to the proceedings before the Board * * *.' without an examination of each of the items ordered produced. The Court of Appeals reversed, establishing certain procedural requirements the Board must follow before an enforcement proceeding is in order. 237 F.2d 359, 362.
As we read the order of the District Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Horowitz
...U.S. at 652, 70 S.Ct. at 369, the lack of any meaningful content in the latter requirement was made evident in CAB v. Hermann, 353 U.S. 322, 77 S. Ct. 804, 1 L.Ed.2d 852 (1957), a per curiam opinion reversing 237 F.2d 359 (9 Cir. 1956). The subpoenas duces tecum there issued by the Civil Ae......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc.
...(3d Cir. 1955). The court may even, in appropriate cases, enforce the subpoena without providing a full hearing. CAB v. Hermann, 353 U.S. 322, 77 S.Ct. 804, 1 L.Ed.2d 852 (1957). But where the defendant in the enforcement proceeding has articulated sufficient allegations to put in issue the......
-
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc Consumers Power Company v. Aeschliman
...(1974); Environmental Prot ction—Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures. Id., at 26279. 18 See, e. g., CAB v. Hermann, 353 U.S. 322, 77 S.Ct. 804, 1 L.Ed.2d 852 (1957); Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 66 S.Ct. 494, 90 L.Ed. 614 (1946); Wallace Corp. v. NLRB, 323 U.......
-
F. T. C. v. Texaco, Inc.
...v. Lonning, 176 U.S.App.D.C. 200, 539 F.2d 202 (1976).177 Six-Company Stipulation (filed 19 May 1976) at 3-4.178 353 U.S. 322, 323, 77 S.Ct. 804, 805, 1 L.Ed.2d 852 (1957).179 Walling v. American Rolbal Corp., 135 F.2d 1003, 1005 (2d Cir. 1943).180 The Trade Commission's and the majority's ......
-
Subpoena power
...447 (1894), the Court upheld a statute directing federal courts to issue subpoenas to compel testimony before the ICC. In CAB v. Hermann , 353 U.S. 322 (1957), the Court approved as established practice the issuance of administrative subpoenas as a matter of absolute agency right. And in NL......
-
Subpoena Power
...447 (1894), the Court upheld a statute directing federal courts to issue subpoenas to compel testimony before the ICC. In CAB v. Hermann , 353 U.S. 322 (1957), the Court approved as established practice the issuance of administrative subpoenas as a matter of absolute agency right. And in NL......
-
Subpoena Power
...447 (1894), the Court upheld a statute directing federal courts to issue subpoenas to compel testimony before the ICC. In CAB v. Hermann , 353 U.S. 322 (1957), the Court approved as established practice the issuance of administrative subpoenas as a matter of absolute agency right. And in NL......
-
DISCOVERY AS REGULATION.
...citing Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, 317 U.S. 501 (1943)). (177.) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE, supra note 168, [section] 8.1. (178.) 353 U.S. 322, 323 (1957) (per (179.) See OFF. OF LEGAL POL'Y, U.S. DEP'T OF JUST., supra note 169, at 11. (180.) BURBANK & FARHANG, supra note 3, at ......