Mallory Coal Co. v. NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL COM'N
Decision Date | 01 August 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 7178.,7178. |
Citation | 69 App. DC 166,99 F.2d 399 |
Parties | MALLORY COAL CO. et al. v. NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Robert E. Quirk, of Washington, D. C., and J. V. Norman, of Louisville, Ky., for petitioners.
Robert W. Knox, Robert L. Stern, and Thomas O'Brien, all of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
By leave of Court, Henry S. Brainard, of Cleveland, Ohio, and John McDill Fox, Allen Coe, and Clarence A. Miller, all of Washington, D. C., as amici curiae.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and MILLER and EDGERTON, Associate Justices.
Petitioners are corporations engaged in the production, sale and shipment of bituminous coal in interstate commerce, and are members in good standing of the Bituminous Coal Code, promulgated by respondent, under the provisions of the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937.1
By its order, dated July 15, 1937, pursuant to authority given by Section 10 of the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 88, 15 U.S.C.A. § 840,2 the Commission required:
* * * * * *
The Commission's order of July 15, 1937, contained also the following injunction:
"The Commission directs specific attention to the provisions of Section 10 of said Act relating to the confidential nature of the reports required under this order and further gives notice that the penalties provided for non-compliance with this order by the producer will be strictly enforced."
Within fifteen days after receipt of copies of the order and forms, petitioners filed verified reports as required. The forms — supplied by the Commission — upon which these reports were made bore at the top, in bold type, the following statement: "This report is required under the provisions of the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937 and is therefore confidential."
On March 30, 1938, the Commission issued a ruling reading as follows:
Section 4, Part 2(a), 50 Stat. 77, 15 U.S.C.A. § 833(a) — referred to in the Commission's ruling of March 30, 1938, provides that:
On May 11, 1938, petitioners filed with the Commission a petition which asserted that the construction placed upon Section 10(a), by its ruling of March 30, 1938, was erroneous and contrary to the intent of the Act; that the reports filed by petitioners were filed in reliance upon the confidence imposed by the provision of Section 10(a) and Section 4, Part 2(a) of the Act; that knowledge of their costs of doing business constitutes a valuable and private right of which they cannot be deprived without their consent; that if the Commission makes such cost reports available to interested parties as proposed in its ruling, petitioners will suffer irreparable injury; and prayed that the Commission vacate its ruling and revoke its construction of Section 10(a) of the Act.
On May 13, 1938, the Commission promulgated a "Notice of and Order for Hearing" reading in part as follows:
On May 25th and 26th the matter was heard by the Commission, appearances were entered on behalf of petitioners and numerous interveners, witnesses were examined, exhibits were introduced into evidence, and the legal questions involved were argued by counsel.
On June 1, 1938, the Commission filed findings of fact and an opinion, and on the same day entered an order as follows:
The petition for review in this court purports to be filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 6(b), Part 2 of the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 85, 15 U.S.C.A. § 836(b),3 and the prayer for relief is as follows:
The jurisdiction of this court is challenged by the Commission, as well as by the Consumers' Counsel, and by other amici curiae. Whether the court has jurisdiction depends upon whether the order from which relief is sought is reviewable under the provisions of Section 6(b), Part 2 of the Act.
It may be argued that the language of Section 6(b) is broad enough to permit judicial review of any order of the Commission. The language of the section is: "Any person aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in a proceeding to which such person is a party may obtain a review of such order * *...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Utah Fuel Co. v. National Bituminous Coal Commission
...from the decree of the lower court denying an injunction and dismissing the bill of complaint. In Mallory Coal Company v. National Bituminous Coal Commission, 69 App.D.C. 166, 99 F.2d 399, this court held that an order of the Commission, identical in purpose and effect with the one complain......
-
Redlands Foothill Groves v. Jacobs
...441; Utah Fuel Co. v. National Bituminous Coal Commission, 1939, 69 App.D.C. 333, 101 F.2d 426; Mallory Coal Company v. National Bituminous Coal Commission, 1938, 69 App.D.C. 166, 99 F.2d 399; see my opinion in Northrop Corporation v. Madden et al., D.C., 30 F.Supp. 993, filed on August 18,......
-
Lukens Steel Co. v. Perkins
...until he has exhausted all prescribed, applicable, administrative remedies." Italics supplied Cf. Mallory Coal Co. v. National Bituminous Coal Comm., 69 App.D.C. 166, 174, 99 F.2d 399, 407. 66 Declaratory Judgment Act, Jud. Code § 274d, 28 U.S.C.A. § 67 Ætna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.......
-
New Concepts for Living, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
...1935 as a limitation on jurisdiction and acknowledging that its purpose was to "prevent surprise"); Mallory Coal Co. v. Nat'l Bituminous Coal Comm'n, 99 F.2d 399, 406-07 (D.C. Cir. 1938) (holding that purpose of § 6(b) of the National Bituminous Coal Act was to "secure to the [agency] an op......