Trans World Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 12582
| Citation | 254 F.2d 90 |
| Decision Date | 23 January 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 12582,13363.,12582 |
| Parties | TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, Inc., Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Charles Pickett, New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. George A. Spater, New York City, was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. William Caverly, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for petitioner.
Mr. Robert L. Park, Atty., Civil Aeronautics Bd., with whom Mr. Franklin M. Stone, Gen. Counsel, Civil Aeronautics Bd., Messrs. John H. Wanner and O. D. Ozment, Associate Gen. Counsel, Civil Aeronautics Bd., and Mr. Daniel M. Friedman, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for respondent. Mr. Charles H. Weston, Atty., Dept. of Justice, also entered an appearance for respondent in No. 12582.
Before PRETTYMAN, WILBUR K. MILLER, and BURGER, Circuit Judges.
This is a mail pay case. Under a statute Trans World Airlines, Inc., was entitled to compensation for transporting mail, the amount to be fixed by the Civil Aeronautics Board under statutory standards and directions. The Postmaster General was a party to the proceeding, protagonist of the Government's interest as responsible for the carrying of the mail. A real dispute developed upon a number of items. Principal among these was the treatment of the federal income tax resultant from an emergency facility amortization deduction under Section 124 of the then Internal Revenue Code.1 The then Solicitor of the Post Office Department signed the brief to the Board in behalf of the Postmaster General on various offset issues.2 This attorney then became a member of the Civil Aeronautics Board, and when the amortization deduction point came on for decision in the Trans World Airlines case he cast the deciding vote in a three-to-two decision in favor of the Postmaster General. He also cast the vote which effectuated a deadlock on Trans World Airlines' motion for reconsideration, thus causing a denial of the motion. The carrier twice moved for the disqualification of this member.
It is plain that in this statute Congress contemplated an adjudicatory proceeding and conferred upon the Board in this respect quasi-judicial functions. The fundamental requirements of fairness in the performance of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Consumer Protection Div. Office of Atty. Gen. v. Consumer Pub. Co., Inc.
...Schools, Inc. v. F.T.C., 425 F.2d 583 (D.C.Cir.1970); American Cyanamid Co. v. F.T.C., 363 F.2d 757 (6th Cir.1966); Trans World Airlines v. C.A.B., 254 F.2d 90 (D.C.Cir.1958). As previously discussed, the Attorney General was not the actual decision maker in this case, and there was no evid......
-
Lead Industries Ass'n, Inc. v. E.P.A.
...case. Laird v. Tatum, 409 U.S. 824, 828, 93 S.Ct. 7, 10, 34 L.Ed.2d 50 (1972) (memorandum of Rehnquist, J.); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 254 F.2d 90, 91 (D.C.Cir.1958). Hawkins' connection with the lead listing controversy involved none of these activities. Moreover, LIA's attempt to......
-
Attorney General v. Department of Public Utilities
...Tatum, 409 U.S. 824, 828-829, 93 S.Ct. 7, 10-11, 34 L.Ed.2d 50 (1972) (memorandum of Rehnquist, J.); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 254 F.2d 90, 91 (D.C.Cir.1958). Further, the language of the rule is broad and denotes an intention to expand its application beyond the ......
-
Gibson v. Berryhill 8212 653
...views among federal courts. Compare Amos Treat & Co. v. SEC, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 306 F.2d 260 (1962), and Trans World Airlines v. CAB, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 391, 254 F.2d 90 (1958), with Pangburn v. CAB, 311 F.2d 349 (CA1 1962). See also Mack v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 296 F.Supp. 12......