GBC, INC. v. United States

Citation302 F. Supp. 1283
Decision Date16 May 1969
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 2382.
PartiesG. B. C., INC., a Tennessee corporation, Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES of America and the Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee

Robert E. Joiner, Memphis, Tenn., S. J. Milligan, Greeneville, Tenn., for plaintiff.

John L. Bowers, U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NEESE, District Judge.

This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1136, 2284, 2321-2325, and this is the proper venue for this proceeding, 28 U.S. C. § 1398.

The Court heard ex parte and considered on May 16, 1969 oral arguments of counsel for the plaintiff, which seeks an order of this Court to temporarily suspend the operation of certain orders of the defendant Interstate Commerce Commission, pending a hearing and determination of the issues herein by a district court of three judges, 28 U.S.C. § 2325. The primary consideration in the premises is whether the issuance of such stay is necessary to prevent irreparable damage to the plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. § 2284 (3).

The evidence presented on this issue is in the form of an affidavit of the plaintiff's president.1 This evidence is of little probative force, being an expression of mere conclusions on the part of the affiant that his carrier will suffer a loss of traffic and revenue resulting from such loss, damage to its relations with its customers and employees, losses of time and money in its development and maintenance of such customer relations and in the training of its employees.

A second consideration is whether the plaintiff is likely to prevail in this proceeding. This is a nearly-impossible adjudication for the Court to make in a period of time which will provide any effective relief to the plaintiff, should the plaintiff be found eventually to be entitled to such. Two other district courts in this circuit have eroded this requirement to demand only a reasonable possibility of ultimate success. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States,2 D.C.Ohio (1963), 220 F.Supp. 46, 46-47, approved in Tennessee Public Service Commission v. United States, D.C.Tenn. (1967), 275 F.Supp. 87, 89-90 3.

This Court believes that the more proper rule is that, it is not necessary to justify the issuance of a temporary restraining order that the plaintiff's right to a final decision, after a trial, be absolutely certain and wholly without doubt; that if the balance of hardships tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, it is ordinarily sufficient that the plaintiff has raised questions going to the merits which are so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them fair ground for litigation and thus, for more deliberate investigation. This was the rule followed in Briggs Manufacturing Company v. Crane Co., D.C.Mich. (1960), 185 F.Supp. 177, 185 7, citing Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., C.A. 2nd (1953), 206 F.2d 738, 740, and left undisturbed in a per curiam opinion in Crane Company v. Briggs Manufacturing Company, C.A.6th (1960), 280 F.2d 747, see esp. 749 1.

The Court notices judicially that a carrier serving a particular market is apt to undergo a more rigorous hardship if confronted with new competition than are carriers which are granted new authority in the same market. This is supported by the elements of damage and loss suggested by the conclusions of the plaintiff's president aforementioned. Further, the pleadings and appendices herein demonstrate that a division of the defendant Commission drew diametrically opposed conclusions herein on the basis of the same evidence, or substantially the same evidence, North American Van Lines, Inc. Ext.—Overall (1968), 750...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Palmigiano v. Travisono
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • August 24, 1970
    ...the merits should be a minor factor, especially where the potential injury is great. As the court held in G. B. C., Inc. v. United States, 302 F.Supp. 1283 at 1284 (E. D.Tenn.1969): "* * * if the balance of hardships tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, it is ordinarily sufficient that the ......
  • Dempsey v. McQueeney
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • January 3, 1975
    ...unconstitutional course of conduct. Thus, "the balance of hardships tips decidedly toward the plaintiffs," G.B.C., Inc. v. United States, 302 F. Supp. 1283, 1284 (E.D.Tenn.1969), and the criteria for the issuance of a preliminary injunction have been satisfied. See National Prisoners Reform......
  • Silva v. East Providence Housing Authority
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • February 11, 1975
    ...on the merits should be a minor factor, especially where the potential injury is great. As the court held in G.B.C., Inc. v. United States, 302 F.Supp. 1283 at 1284 (E.D.Tenn.1969): `* * * if the balance of hardships tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, it is ordinarily sufficient that the ......
  • Tate v. Kassulke, Civ. A. No. C 75-0031 L(A).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • March 4, 1976
    ...v. Nichol, 326 F.Supp. 613 (W.D.Wis.1971), aff'd, 404 U.S. 1055, 92 S.Ct. 735, 30 L.Ed.2d 743 (1972); and G. B. C. Inc. v. United States, 302 F.Supp. 1283, 1284 (E.D.Tenn. 1969). We are inclined to the view that meaningful access to the courts with regards to jail inmates should be provided......
  • 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