United States v. Dixie Highway Express, Inc Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc v. Dixie Highway Express, Inc
| Decision Date | 18 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 694 and 707,s. 694 and 707 |
| Citation | 389 U.S. 409,19 L.Ed.2d 639,88 S.Ct. 539 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES et al. v. DIXIE HIGHWAY EXPRESS, INC., et al. BRASWELL MOTOR FREIGHT LINES, INC. v. DIXIE HIGHWAY EXPRESS, INC., et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert W. Ginnane and Betty Jo Christian, for the United States and others.
T. S. Christopher, for appellant Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc. Robert E. Short, for appellees Dixie Highway Express, Inc., and others.
Bates Block, Wentworth Griffin, Ed White, W. D. Benson, Jr., John S. Fessenden, Robert E. Joyner, R. J. Reynolds III and William O. Turney, for appellees Baggett Transp. Co. and others.
Pursuant to § 207(a) of the Interstate Commerce Carrier Act, 49 Stat. 551, 49 U.S.C. § 307(a), the Interstate Commerce Commission concluded that a certificate of public convenience and necessity should issue to Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., authorizing Braswell to extend its motor carrier services to stated points. This conclusion was based upon the Commission's finding that existing service to those points was inadequate to serve public needs. Upon suit by several competing motor carriers serving the area, the District Court enjoined the Commission from proceeding with the grant to Braswell on the ground that the Commission had failed to make adequate findings and that it had failed to afford existing carriers an opportunity to rectify deficiencies in their service. Upon remand, the Commission did not take further evidence, but it made additional findings in considerable detail. It again concluded that shippers and receivers were hampered by the inadequacy of existing service, and it held that, despite numerous complaints, existing carriers had not demonstrated that they could be depended upon to furnish adequate service.
The competing carriers then filed in the District Court a motion under the All-Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, contending that the Commission had disregarded the prior opinion and order of the court and asking that the court enforce its prior judgment. The District Court agreed. It stated that it was the Commission's 'invariable rule' that no certificate would issue to add a carrier to those serving an area without first furnishing existing carriers an opportunity to improve the service. It referred to this as a 'rule of property' operating in favor of existing carriers. Accordingly, it permanently enjoined the Commission from issuing a certificate of convenience and necessity to Braswell 'unless and until the (appellees—the existing motor carriers) are first afforded a reasonable opportunity to furnish such service * * *.'
The United States and the Commission, and Braswell, appealed the judgment to this Court under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1253 and 2101(b).*
The District...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buckner Trucking, Inc. v. United States
...affected by the issuance of additional certificates of public convenience and necessity. See United States v. Dixie Highway Express, Inc., 389 U.S. 409, 88 S.Ct. 539, 19 L.Ed.2d 639 (1967); Younger Brothers, Inc. v. United States, 238 F.Supp. 859 (S.D.Tex.1965) (three-judge court); St. John......
-
Trans-American Van Service, Inc. v. United States
...served by the protestants. Bowman Transportation, supra, 419 U.S. at 288, 95 S.Ct. 438; United States v. Dixie Highway Express, Inc., 389 U.S. 409, 411-412, 88 S.Ct. 539, 19 L.Ed.2d 639 (1967). Hence, the issue of inadequacy of existing service is only one element to be considered; it is no......
-
Hamilton v. Nakai
...construed. Dixie Highway Express, Inc. v. United States, S.D. Miss., 1967, 268 F.Supp. 239, rev'd on other grounds, 1967, 389 U.S. 409, 88 S. Ct. 539, 19 L.Ed.2d 639. In Dixie, a case that involved a three-judge panel, the court concluded, "The universal rule is that every court has the inh......
-
C-Line, Inc. v. United States
...a carrier without affording existing carriers an opportunity to rectify differences in their services. United States v. Dixie Express, 389 U.S. 409, 88 S.Ct. 539, 19 L.Ed.2d 639 (1967). The Supreme Court held at page ". . . upon the basis of appropriate findings, the `Commission may authori......