DeCamp Bus Lines v. United States, Civ. A. No. 608-61.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
Writing for the CourtMcLAUGHLIN, Circuit , MADDEN, , and WORTENDYKE
Citation224 F. Supp. 196
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 608-61.
Decision Date09 September 1963
PartiesDeCAMP BUS LINES, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, and Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants.

224 F. Supp. 196

DeCAMP BUS LINES, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, and Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 608-61.

United States District Court D. New Jersey.

September 9, 1963.


224 F. Supp. 197

James F. X. O'Brien, Newark, N. J., for plaintiff, DeCamp Bus Lines.

Lee Loevinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., John D. H. Wigger, Dept. of Justice, David M. Satz, Jr., U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., for defendant, the United States.

Robert W. Ginnane, Gen. Counsel, Fritz R. Kahn, Asst. Gen. Counsel, for defendant, Interstate Commerce Commission.

Before McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge, MADDEN, Chief Judge, and WORTENDYKE, District Judge.

MADDEN, Chief Judge.

This is an action instituted by the plaintiff, DeCamp Bus Lines, to enjoin, set aside, annul and suspend an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, dated May 4, 1961, in two separate dockets which were consolidated in the Commission's order, namely, DeCamp Bus Lines Extension — Parkway (Docket MC 109312, Sub No. 29) and Lakeland Bus Lines, Inc. and North Jersey Transit v. DeCamp Bus Lines (Docket MC-C-2175).

Jurisdiction under Sections 1336, 1398 and 2321 through 2325, inclusive, of Title 28 U.S.C., and under Section 1009 of Title 5 U.S.C., having been invoked, this district court of three judges was constituted and convened in accordance with Section 2284 of Title 28 U.S.C., to hear and determine the matter.

DeCamp Bus Lines (hereinafter referred to as DeCamp) is a corporation of the State of New Jersey engaged in the interstate transportation of passengers, baggage, mail and express, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, between New York City, New York and certain points in northern New Jersey under Interstate Commerce Commission certificates bearing Docket No. MC 109312 and various sub numbers issued thereunder. DeCamp served between the aforesaid points for a number of years prior to 1935, and certain of its operations are so-called Grandfather operations certificated to it by the Interstate Commerce Commission in a re-issued certificate, dated May 18, 1956, under Docket MC 109312. From time to time, in order to serve the traveling public, DeCamp extended its operations. To avail itself of such new and expeditious routings as the New Jersey Turnpike, the New Jersey Express Highway

224 F. Supp. 198
S-3, the Garden State Parkway and other improved routes between New York City and its authorized points of service in northern New Jersey, DeCamp rerouted certain of its services and instituted others.1 In instances where authority for the rerouting and institution of its services could not be derived from its Grandfather operations or from the terms of prior issued and operated certificates, DeCamp applied for and was issued certificates augmenting and supplementing its operating authority. The present controversy circumvolves one such rerouting and DeCamp's authorization therefor

On August 22, 1957, DeCamp inaugurated its so-called Route 77 service between the Port of New York Authority Bus Terminal in the Borough of Manhattan, New York City, New York, over New Jersey Express Highway S-3, the Garden State Parkway, and certain streets and highways in the City of East Orange, the City of Orange, the Town of West Orange, the Town of Livingston, the Township of Hanover, the Township of Parsippany Troy-Hills, and the Town of Morristown, all of which are located in the State of New Jersey.

On February 21, 1958, Lakeland Bus Lines, Inc. and North Jersey Transit by joint complaint charged that DeCamp had undertaken interstate passenger operations unauthorized by its certificates of public convenience and necessity in violation, inter alia, of Section 206 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 306. The complainants specifically alleged that in operating the Route 77 service DeCamp traversed portions of the Garden State Parkway in East Orange and Bloomfield, New Jersey, which were unauthorized. The complaint was filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission and given docket designation MC-C-2175. A hearing thereon was held before an examiner on September 23, 1958, as a result of which, the examiner filed his report and recommended order wherein he concluded that DeCamp's Route 77 service was being operated over the Garden State Parkway in East Orange and Bloomfield without the appropriate authority and that the operations thereover should be immediately discontinued. The report and recommended order required DeCamp "to cease and desist forthwith and hereafter from such unauthorized operations unless and until appropriate authority therefor is obtained from the Commission." On March 26, 1959, DeCamp excepted to the examiner's report and recommended order, and the two complainants replied on April 30, 1959.

In the interim, apparently acting upon the examiner's recommended order, DeCamp, on March 17, 1959, filed a precautionary application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity in order to obtain specific authorization from the Interstate Commerce Commission to operate over the Garden State Parkway in East Orange, Bloomfield and Nutley, New Jersey. This application was filed with the Commission and given the docket designation Docket MC 109312, Sub No. 29. The application was heard by a joint board on October 19 and December 7, 1959, and was protested by Public Service Coordinated Transport and Lakeland Bus Lines, Inc. The report and recommended order of the joint board was served on April 29, 1960. Although the joint board did not expressly determine the issue of DeCamp's authorization to traverse the Garden State Parkway in East Orange and Bloomfield, it did find that a certificate of public convenience and necessity should be issued to DeCamp, granting the authority sought in the application. On May 25, 1960, Lakeland Bus Lines, Inc. excepted to the report and recommended order, and DeCamp replied on June 17, 1960.

Inasmuch as the Interstate Commerce Commission, Division 1, felt that both of the aforesaid proceedings (Docket MC-C-2175 and Docket MC 109312, Sub No. 29) involved related issues, the two matters were consolidated and disposed of by the

224 F. Supp. 199
Commission in its report dated September 12, 1960, and served September 19, 1960, as follows
"In No. MC-109312 (Sub-No. 29), we find that the present and future public convenience and necessity require operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of passengers and their baggage, between East Orange and junction New Jersey Highway 3 Ramp and New Jersey Highway 3 Ramp from East Orange over the Garden State Parkway to Junction New Jersey Highway 3 Ramp, thence over New Jersey Highway 3 Ramp to New Jersey Highway 3 and return over the same route serving no intermediate points; that applicant is fit, willing and able properly to perform such service and to conform to our rules and regulations thereunder; that a certificate authorizing such operations should be granted; and that the application in all other respects should be denied.
"In No. MC-C-2175, we find that the transportation by defendant of passengers and their baggage between the Port of New York Authority Bus Terminal, Borough of Manhattan, New York, N.Y., and Morristown, N.J., by operating over New Jersey State Route 3, the Garden State Parkway, via Clifton, Bloomfield, Nutley, again through Bloomfield and East Orange to the Parkway exit therein, thence over certain streets and highways in the City of East Orange, the City of Orange, the Town of West Orange, the Town of Livingston, the Township of Hanover, the Township of Parsippany Troy-Hills, and the Town of Morristown, and return over the same routes, has been unauthorized under the terms of its existing certificate; and that in view of the grant of the authority set forth in the preceding paragraph the complaint should be dismissed."

Thereupon, Public Service Coordinated Transport filed a petition for reconsideration in Docket MC 109312, Sub No. 29, and DeCamp filed a petition for reconsideration, or, in the alternative, oral argument or further hearing in Docket MC-C-2175. Both petitions, however, were denied by the Commission on May 4, 1961, and shortly thereafter a certificate of public convenience and necessity No. MC 109312, Sub 29, dated June 13, 1961, was issued to DeCamp granting the authority set forth in the Commission's report and order.

On May 23, 1961, DeCamp received a letter from the Interstate Commerce Commission written by an Assistant Director relative to the proceedings in MC 109312, Sub 29 and MC-C-2175, stating in part:

"* * * In connection with this action, the Commission has instructed this office to inform you that your other operations should conform to the interpretation contained in the report of Division 1 in the application proceeding MC-109312, Sub 29, decided September 12, 1960, which embraced No. MC-C-2175, Lakeland Bus Lines, Inc. and North Jersey Transit v. DeCamp Bus Lines.
"If it should be considered necessary, temporary authority may be sought with respect to any particular service for which your line does not hold authority, or which it cannot properly perform under the existing authority under the above decision."

Subsequently, on August 2, 1961, this action was commenced by DeCamp to enjoin, set aside, annul and suspend the order of the Commission.

Upon first impression it would appear DeCamp assumes a unique position in instituting this suit inasmuch as the determinations of the Commission resulted, first, in the dismissal of the complaint against DeCamp in Docket MC-C-2175, and second, in the granting of DeCamp's application in Docket MC 109312, Sub No. 29, both results apparently favorable to

224 F. Supp. 200
DeCamp. However, DeCamp's position becomes more comprehensible when it is understood that, fundamentally, DeCamp seeks to review the findings and conclusions of the Commission which DeCamp alleges...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • A-1 COACH TOURS, INC. v. United States
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • October 11, 1966
    ...683-684). Cf. Parkhill Truck Co. v. United States, N.D.Okla.1961, 198 F. Supp. 362, 365; DeCamp Bus Lines v. United States, D.N.J.1963, 224 F.Supp. 196, 201 (essentially "interpretive" orders affecting actual operations and made after evidentiary hearings). A plain refusal of the Commission......
  • American President Lines, Ltd. v. United States, No. 28426
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • October 10, 1963
    ...Such judgment shall also effectively provide that payments of disputed charter hire made by American President Lines, Ltd., pursuant 224 F. Supp. 196 to the January 30, 1959 letter-agreement are without prejudice to the rights of either party and are not to be considered voluntary payments ......
  • City of El Paso v. AUTOBUSES INTERNACIONALES, ETC., No. EP-79-CA-176.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • August 20, 1980
    ...the ICC and the courts have also required the use of reason and common sense in construing that term. DeCamp Bus Lines v. U. S., 224 F.Supp. 196 (D.N.J.1963); Hudson Bus, supra. In Hudson, the Commission stated "Where streets have been specified or named in the authority granted, a carrier ......
  • Ace Lines, Inc. v. United States, Civ. No. 5-1467.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Southern District of Iowa
    • April 12, 1965
    ...and inconsistency of its holding with prior holdings does not make the decision arbitrary. DeCamp Bus Lines v. United States, D.C., 224 F.Supp. 196; Ace Lines, Inc. v. United States, D.C., 197 F.Supp. 591; Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 47 S.Ct. 222, 71 L.Ed. 463. Even if......
4 cases
  • A-1 COACH TOURS, INC. v. United States
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • October 11, 1966
    ...683-684). Cf. Parkhill Truck Co. v. United States, N.D.Okla.1961, 198 F. Supp. 362, 365; DeCamp Bus Lines v. United States, D.N.J.1963, 224 F.Supp. 196, 201 (essentially "interpretive" orders affecting actual operations and made after evidentiary hearings). A plain refusal of the Commission......
  • American President Lines, Ltd. v. United States, No. 28426
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • October 10, 1963
    ...Such judgment shall also effectively provide that payments of disputed charter hire made by American President Lines, Ltd., pursuant 224 F. Supp. 196 to the January 30, 1959 letter-agreement are without prejudice to the rights of either party and are not to be considered voluntary payments ......
  • City of El Paso v. AUTOBUSES INTERNACIONALES, ETC., No. EP-79-CA-176.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • August 20, 1980
    ...the ICC and the courts have also required the use of reason and common sense in construing that term. DeCamp Bus Lines v. U. S., 224 F.Supp. 196 (D.N.J.1963); Hudson Bus, supra. In Hudson, the Commission stated "Where streets have been specified or named in the authority granted, a carrier ......
  • Ace Lines, Inc. v. United States, Civ. No. 5-1467.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Southern District of Iowa
    • April 12, 1965
    ...and inconsistency of its holding with prior holdings does not make the decision arbitrary. DeCamp Bus Lines v. United States, D.C., 224 F.Supp. 196; Ace Lines, Inc. v. United States, D.C., 197 F.Supp. 591; Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 47 S.Ct. 222, 71 L.Ed. 463. Even if......

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