STATE CORPORATION COM'N OF STATE OF KANSAS v. United States
Decision Date | 01 April 1963 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. T-3169. |
Parties | STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF the STATE OF KANSAS, Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Byron M. Gray, Charles C. McCarter, Gen. Counsel, State Corp. Commission, Topeka, Kan., for plaintiff.
Lee Loevinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., John H. D. Wigger, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., for United States.
Robert W. Ginnane, Gen. Counsel, Stanton P. Sender, Atty., Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C., for Interstate Commerce Commission.
Roth H. Gatewood, Topeka, Kan., William P. Higgins, Omaha, Neb., Harvey Huston, Chicago, Ill. for defendant railroad companies.
Before Delmas C. HILL, Circuit Judge, Arthur J. STANLEY, Jr., Chief Judge, and George TEMPLAR, District Judge.
This action was brought by the Kansas Corporation Commission to enjoin, annul, and set aside an order entered July 31, 1962, by the Interstate Commerce Commission in a proceeding entitled "No. 33239, Kansas Interstate Freight Rates and Charges." Upon petition of thirteen principal railroads operating in Kansas, the Interstate Commerce Commission commenced an investigation under section 13(4) of the Interstate Commerce Act to determine whether or not rates and charges of the common carriers by railroad, or any of them, for the intrastate transportation of certain commodities made or imposed by authority of the State of Kansas had caused or will cause, by reason of the failure of such rates and charges to include increases corresponding to those permitted by the Interstate Commerce Commission in the interstate rates and charges on like traffic in Ex Parte Orders Nos. 206 and 212, any undue or unreasonable advantage, preference, or prejudice as between persons or localities in intrastate commerce, on the one hand, and interstate or foreign commerce, on the other, or any undue, unreasonable, or unjust discrimination against, or undue burden on, interstate or foreign commerce; and, if so, to determine what rates and charges should be prescribed to remove any unlawfulness found to exist.
After a hearing, the Interstate Commerce Commission made findings which are hereinafter set out:
The foregoing findings were implemented by an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission under date of July 31, 1962. Thereafter, after this Court had issued a temporary restraining order staying the effectiveness of the Commission's order, the Commission itself on September 11, 1962 issued a further order postponing indefinitely compliance with its order of July 31, 1962 until the completion of judicial review.
This Court has had previous occasions to consider actions of this character. On these other occasions, it has determined that the scope of judicial review is very limited under the doctrine of administrative finality and that administrative orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission entered by it in the exercise of its powers, when dealing with matters particularly under its jurisdiction are not to be set aside by this court on review unless such orders are found to exceed constitutional limits, are based upon a mistake of law, have been made without the required hearing, are found to be unsupported by the evidence submitted and considered by the Commission in making its determination, or for some other reason may be found to be an abuse of power by the body acting within the scope of its authority.
Applying these rules to the instant situation, it is readily apparent that we must first determine whether or not the Interstate Commerce Commission has applied an erroneous rule of law in reaching its conclusion that the Kansas Corporation Commission's intrastate rates upon certain commodities are undue, unreasonable, unjust, and an undue burden on interstate commerce.
The particular section under which the Interstate Commerce Commission predicated its action reads as follows:
49 U.S. C.A. § 13(4)
It is clear to the Court, after examining this section and the entire record, that whether or not the rates imposed by the Kansas Corporation Commission have created an unreasonable or unjust discrimination against interstate commerce is determined primarily by criteria or factors pertaining to the overall profitable operation of the railroad carriers involved in interstate commerce. Also, a factor that may be considered is the likelihood, or unlikelihood, that rail traffic in the various commodities involved may be consigned via truck carriers upon an increase in the intrastate rates. However, in the final analysis, it is system-wide experience that warrants the greatest consideration because, in that way, the purposes of the Interstate Commerce Carrier Act can best be effectuated. Furthermore, the Interstate Commerce Commission must construe the act to "promote safe, adequate, economical, and efficient service...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oklahoma Corporation Commission v. United States
...v. ICC, 347 F.Supp. 103, 111-112 (E. D.N.C.), aff'd, 410 U.S. 919, 93 S.Ct. 1362, 35 L.Ed.2d 582; State Corporation Commission of Kansas v. United States, 216 F.Supp. 376, 384 (D.Kan.), aff'd, 375 U.S. 15, 84 S.Ct. 60, 11 L.Ed.2d 39. In other findings adopted by the ICC, the Administrative ......
-
Bredehoeft Produce Company, Inc. v. United States
...United States (not yet reported, KC-3515, op. May 15, 1973) now reported at D.C., 350 F.Supp. 1216; State Corporation Commission of Kansas v. United States, 216 F.Supp. 376 (D.C.Kan. 1963), aff'd, 375 U.S. 15, 84 S.Ct. 60, 11 L.Ed.2d 39. The wisdom or `rightness' of the Commission's decisio......
-
Yellow Forwarding Company v. ICC
...Transfer Co., Inc. v. United States (not yet reported, KC-3515, op. May 15, 1973) 370 F.Supp. 1216; State Corporation Commission of Kansas v. United States, 216 F.Supp. 376 (D.C.Kan.1963), aff'd, 375 U.S. 15, 84 S.Ct. 60, 11 L.Ed.2d 39. The wisdom or "rightness" of the Commission's decision......
-
Oklahoma Corporation Commission v. United States, Civ. A. No. 64-142.
...limits, are unsupported by the evidence, or for some other reason amount to an abuse of power. State Corp. Commission of Kansas v. United States, D.C., 216 F.Supp. 376. This Court has no concern with the correctness of the I. C. C.'s reasonings or the soundness of its conclusions, nor may t......