PRINSBURG COOP FERTILIZER COMPANY v. United States, 4-70 Civ. 564.

• Decision Date: 15 September 1971
• Docket Number: No. 4-70 Civ. 564.,4-70 Civ. 564.
• Citation: 338 F. Supp. 1059
• Parties: PRINSBURG COOP FERTILIZER COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs, Cedar Mills Town et al., Intervenor- and Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, and Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants, and Chicago & North Western Railway Company and Minneapolis Industrial Railway Company, Intervenor-Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

338 F. Supp. 1059

PRINSBURG COOP FERTILIZER COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs, Cedar Mills Town et al., Intervenor- and Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, and Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants, and Chicago & North Western Railway Company and Minneapolis Industrial Railway Company, Intervenor-Defendants.

No. 4-70 Civ. 564.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Fourth Division.

September 15, 1971.

James B. Lund and Y. D. Wada, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiffs, and counties of McLeod and Meeker, Village of Winsted, Silver Lake and Cosmos and Town of Cedar Mills, intervening plaintiffs.

Best, Flanagan, Lewis, Simonet & Bellows by Harold C. Evarts, Minneapolis, Minn., for Sterner Industries, Inc., intervening plaintiff.

Robert C. Renner, U. S. Atty. by J. Earl Cudd, Asst. U. S. Atty., Charles H. White, Jr., I. C. C., Washington, D. C., for defendants.

Chestnut, Jones, Brooks, Kennedy & Burkard by Jack L. Chestnut, Minneapolis, Minn., Stuart F. Gassner, Chicago, Ill., for intervening defendants, Chicago & North Western Railway Co. and Minneapolis Industrial Railway Co.

Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, and LARSON and NEVILLE, District Judges.

MEMORANDUM

PER CURIAM:

The Interstate Commerce Commission, by virtue of Sections 1(18), 1(19), 1(20) and 1(22) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 1(18), 1(19), 1(20) and 1(22), has exclusive and plenary jurisdiction to regulate interstate commerce, including the abandonment of railroad lines transporting intrastate traffic as part of a larger interstate railroad system. Colorado v. United States, 271 U.S. 153, 46 S.Ct. 452, 70 L.Ed. 878 (1925). This Court has jurisdiction to review the Order permitting abandonment issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission by virtue of Title 28, U.S.C. § 1336.

The standard of review in such a case has been articulated by Mr. Justice Brandeis in Colorado v. United States, supra, at p. 168, 46 S.Ct. at p. 456:

"The sole test prescribed is that abandonment be consistent with public necessity and convenience. In determining whether it is, the Commission must have regard to the needs of both intrastate and interstate commerce. . . . The benefit to one of the abandonment must be weighed against the inconvenience and loss to which the other will thereby be subjected. Conversely, the benefits to particular communities and commerce of continued operation must be weighed against the burden thereby imposed upon other commerce. . . . The result of this weighing — the judgment of the Commission — is expressed by its order granting or denying the certificate."

The scope of judicial review of orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission is limited to ascertaining whether there is warrant in the law and the facts for what the Commission has done. Unless there has been prejudicial departure from requirements of the law or abuse of the Commission's discretion, the reviewing court is without authority to intervene. United States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines, Inc., 327 U.S. 515, 66 S.Ct. 687, 90 L.Ed. 831 (1946); Great Northern Railway Company v. United States, 209 F.Supp. 238 (D. Minn., 1962). This standard has been specifically applied to reviewal of orders authorizing abandonment of a railroad line in Moeller v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 201 F.Supp. 583 (D.C.Iowa, 1962). See also Nebraska ex rel. Nebraska State Ry. Commission v. United States, 255 F.Supp. 718 (D.Nebraska, 1966) for the function of a three-judge statutory court in reviewing an I.C.C. abandonment order.

In this case, the Commission determined that Minneapolis Industrial Railway Company had sustained operating losses on that portion of the line to be abandoned and was in financial difficulty, and that Chicago, North Western Railway Company had incurred operating losses for its entire lines for a number of years; that an expenditure of over $1.1 million would be required for repairs to rehabilitate the physical condition of the line; that annual maintenance expense thereafter would exceed $165,000; that the traffic on the line was declining; that all industrial development at Hutchinson, Minnesota, now being served by Minneapolis Industrial Railway, would continue to be served following abandonment by the Great Northern Railroad (now Burlington-Northern) as a condition of the abandonment; that even if repairs were made, there was no indication that the traffic or economic condition of the line would improve;...