INTERSTATE COMMERCE COM'N v. Allen E. Kroblin, Inc.
| Citation | 212 F.2d 555 |
| Decision Date | 11 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 14921.,14921. |
| Parties | INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. ALLEN E. KROBLIN, Inc. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Asa J. Merrill, Atty., Interstate Commerce Commission, New York City (James A. Murray, Washington, D. C., and Donald R. Partney, Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.
David Axelrod, Chicago, Ill., for amici curiae, David Axelrod and Carl S. Steiner, in support of the position of appellant.
Craig H. Mosier, Waterloo, Iowa (Mosier & Mosier, Waterloo, Iowa, on the brief), for appellee.
Donald A. Campbell, Atty., Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. (Neil Brooks, Associate Sol., Washington, D. C., on the brief), for amicus curiae the Secretary of Agriculture, in support of the position of appellee.
Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges.
The Interstate Commerce Commission sought to enjoin Allen E. Kroblin, Inc., an Iowa trucking corporation, from hauling dressed poultry1 in interstate commerce, because it had no certificate of convenience and necessity from the Commission, 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 306 and 309. The District Court denied the injunction and dismissed the suit, and the Commission has appealed.
The basis of the trial court's action was its considered view that the hauling of dressed poultry was a hauling of an agricultural commodity, and that the operation therefore was exempt from the certificating requirements of Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. A. § 301 et seq., under the provision of § 303(b) (6) that "Nothing in this chapter, except the provisions of section 304 of this title relative to qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees and safety of operation or standards of equipment shall be construed to include * * * (6) motor vehicles used in carrying property consisting of ordinary livestock, fish (including shell fish), or agricultural (including horticultural) commodities (not including manufactured products thereof), if such motor vehicles are not used in carrying any other property, or passengers, for compensation."
In its resolution of whether dressed poultry represented an agricultural commodity or constituted "manufactured products thereof", the court considered the question on the basis of the legal, the legislative, and the industrial realities involved, taking into account the general concept and the decisional definition existing as to the term "manufacture", the indicated purpose of § 303(b) (6) reflected in its legislative history and given confirmation in the consistent treatment by Congress of the attempts made from time to time to get the language of the section changed, and the industrial fact that the exemption was not a matter of favor to truck operators but of policy toward farmers, in the friendly concern of Congress for agriculture and its inherent problems.
All of this was exhaustively covered in a 30-page printed opinion prepared by the court and published in 113 F.Supp. 599. That opinion is so complete — in its searching-out of the legislative history, its compiling of the relevant decisions, and its detailing of the attempts, thwartings and shiftings that have occurred in the Commission's treatment of the exemption from the aspect of motor-carrier significance and not of agricultural object2 — that any discussion by us would only involve a repetition of this assembled material and a duplication of substantial publication expense. We agree fully with the views of the District Court and, in the situation thus existing, we affirm the judgment upon the basis of the court's opinion, 113 F. Supp. 599.
If we were to undertake to add a word, it would be simply to emphasize the inescapable fact that, when Congress, in its enactment of § 303(b), chose to change the language of the exemption here involved, as it had been originally drafted and recommended by Joseph B. Eastman, then Federal Coordinator of Transportation and long a member of the Interstate Commerce Commission, from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continental Oil Company v. Federal Power Commission
...also I.C.C. v. Dunn, 5 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 116; I.C.C. v. Allen E. Kroblin, Inc., D.C. N.D.Iowa, 1953, 113 F.Supp. 599, affirmed 8 Cir., 1954, 212 F.2d 555. It matters not what happens to regulation, it matters not how some assumed policy will be thwarted or impeded. The simple truth is th......
-
HALE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY v. United States
...77 S.Ct. 129, 1 L.Ed.2d 82 (1956); Interstate Commerce Commission v. Allen E. Kroblin, Inc., 113 F. Supp. 599 (N.D.Ia.1953), aff'd 212 F.2d 555 (8th Cir.1954), cert. den. 348 U.S. 836, 75 S.Ct. 49, 99 L.Ed. 659 2 Although "exempt" commodities in themselves, frozen fish and poultry, if trans......
-
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. United States, Civ. A. No. 75-254.
...Ry. Co. v. United States, 50 F.Supp. 249 (D.Minn. 1943), aff'd, 322 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 842, 88 L.Ed. 1093 (1944); I.C.C. v. Allen E. Kroblin, Inc., 212 F.2d 555 (8th Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 836, 75 S.Ct. 49, 99 L.Ed. 659 (1954), aff'g 113 F.Supp. 599 (N.D.Iowa Thus, having determin......
-
Counts v. Cedarville School District
...See, e.g., Michigan National Bank v. State of Michigan, 365 U.S. 467, 81 S.Ct. 659, 5 L.Ed.2d 710 (1961) and I.C.C. v. Allen E. Kroblin, Inc., 212 F.2d 555 (8th Cir.1954). However, given the unusual nature of the filing, the Court believes the better course for it to follow is to simply not......
-
Legal Writing as a Kind of Philosophy - Joel R. Cornwell
...1993); Helene S. Shapo et al., Writing and Analysis in the Law 27-53,176-94 (3d ed. 1995). 51. 113 F. Supp. 599 (N.D. Iowa 1953), affd, 212 F.2d 555 (8th Cir. 1954). The choice of this example is not fortuitous. For a comprehensive analysis of the logical disjunction of this syllogism, see ......