Wichita Board of Trade v. United States, Civ. A. No. W-4730.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation352 F. Supp. 365
PartiesThe WICHITA BOARD OF TRADE et al., Plaintiffs, v. The UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants.
Decision Date26 May 1972
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. W-4730.

352 F. Supp. 365

The WICHITA BOARD OF TRADE et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
The UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. W-4730.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

May 26, 1972.


352 F. Supp. 366

Glaves & Weil, Jack Glaves, Wichita, Kan., Belnap, McCarthy, Spencer, Sweeney & Harkaway, Harold E. Spencer, Daniel J. Sweeney, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

Robert J. Roth, U. S. Atty., Richard Oxandale, Asst. U. S. Atty., Wichita, Kan., for the United States and I.C.C.

Charles W. Bucy, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Kenneth H. Vail, Atty., U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., for defendants.

Fritz R. Kahn, Gen. Counsel, Hanford O'Hara, Atty., Washington, D. C., for I.C.C.

Richard W. McLaren, Asst. Atty. Gen., John H. D. Wigger, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for the United States.

Charles W. Harris, of Weigand, Curfman, Brainerd, Harris & Kaufman, Wichita, Kan., for intervenors Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. and others.

William F. Cottrell and Christopher A. Mills, Chicago, Ill., for intervenor railroads.

BARRETT, Circuit Judge, and THEIS and O'CONNOR, District Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is an action to enjoin, annul, set aside, and suspend orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission entered by the Commission, Division 2, on April 16, 1971, and by the Commission en banc on September 21, 1971, in proceedings entitled Investigation and Suspension Docket No. 8548, Inspection in Transit, Grain and Grain Products, reported at 339 I. C.C. 364 and 340 I.C.C. 69 respectively. A three-judge court was convened to hear the case. The suit is brought pursuant to the provisions of Sections 1336, 1398, 2284 and 2321-2325 of Title 28 U. S.C.

By the reports and orders here assailed, the Commission has found just

352 F. Supp. 367
and reasonable the establishment of tariff provisions applicable throughout the West at the rate of $13.36 per car for the first in-transit inspection services historically provided by the rail carriers under the line-haul rates. The Commission did not require a reduction in the line-haul rates in relation to the reduced service

The in-transit inspection service with which we are here concerned has reference to the practice of stopping railroad cars loaded with grain and grain products and placing them on railroad track facilities for the purpose of permitting inspection of the contents of the car, awaiting disposition orders from shippers after inspection, and the subsequent movement of the railroad car. The sample or samples tested determine the official grade of the contents of the car for the purpose of establishing its value at market.

This transit service has been historically provided by the rail carriers in the West as part of the line-haul rates. Until 1968, federal law required official federal inspection and sampling. That function was performed by federal officials. That requirement was eliminated by Congress in 1968. 82 Stat. 761, 7 U.S.C. § 71 et seq. The primary purpose of Congress was to effect an increased utilization of rail cars. In its brief the Commission noted that car shortages on a nation-wide basis was a grave problem and that "the Commission's action here represents a determination to employ all rational and lawful means to attempt to alleviate the difficulty."

After extensive hearings the Commission found that: (1) the proposed charges do not apply in any instance where applicable line-haul rates plus the charge would exceed the maximum reasonable rates set forth in Grain and Grain Products, 205 I.C.C. 301 (1934), 215 I.C.C. 83 (1936), (2) inspection of grain is no longer a mandatory requirement of federal law, (3) there is a need for inspection at some point in the grain marketing process, but inspection in-transit is not essential, and (4) grain inspection in-transit is an "accessorial" service for which a charge separate from the basic line-haul charges may be properly assessed. The Commission then found that the proposed charges were just and reasonable in that the railroads established by substantial evidence that the costs associated with in-transit inspection correspond to the level of the proposed charges and that delays resulting from in-transit inspection amount to more than three days per car. There is substantial evidence in support thereof.

The Commission recognized...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Railway Company v. Wichita Board of Trade Interstate Commerce Commission v. Wichita Board of Trade 8212 214, 72 8212 433, Nos. 72
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 18 June 1973
    ...Court is affirmed as to the remand to the ICC and is reversed as to the injunction suspending the proposed charges. P. 2374—2384. D.C. 352 F.Supp. 365, affirmed in part and reversed in part. Mr. Justice MARSHALL, in an opinion joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice STEWART, and Mr. Justic......
  • Appeal of Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., No. 66097
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 6 December 1991
    ...by the Department must be taken into account by this court. As support, FDIC cites Wichita Board of Trade v. United States, 352 F.Supp. 365, 369 (D.Kan.1972), aff'd in part, rev'd in part 412 U.S. 800, 93 S.Ct. 2367, 37 L.Ed.2d 350 (1973), where the court recognized that activities and cond......
  • Wichita Bd. of Trade v. U.S., No. 82-1808
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 28 April 1983
    ...1069 of Kansas setting aside the rate, remanding the matter to ICC, and suspending the charges until otherwise ordered by the court. 352 F.Supp. 365. (4)--July 7, 1972. Order of Supreme Court staying judgment of the Kansas court until final determination of the railroads' appeal and requiri......
  • Secretary of Agriculture of U.S. v. I. C. C., No. 76-1026
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 11 March 1977
    ...this decision was overturned by the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, Wichita Board of Trade v. United States, 352 F.Supp. 365 (D.C.Kan.1972). On appeal to the Supreme Court, the district court's decision was affirmed as to the remand to the Commission but an injuncti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Railway Company v. Wichita Board of Trade Interstate Commerce Commission v. Wichita Board of Trade 8212 214, 72 8212 433, Nos. 72
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 18 June 1973
    ...Court is affirmed as to the remand to the ICC and is reversed as to the injunction suspending the proposed charges. P. 2374—2384. D.C. 352 F.Supp. 365, affirmed in part and reversed in part. Mr. Justice MARSHALL, in an opinion joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice STEWART, and Mr. Justic......
  • Appeal of Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., No. 66097
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 6 December 1991
    ...by the Department must be taken into account by this court. As support, FDIC cites Wichita Board of Trade v. United States, 352 F.Supp. 365, 369 (D.Kan.1972), aff'd in part, rev'd in part 412 U.S. 800, 93 S.Ct. 2367, 37 L.Ed.2d 350 (1973), where the court recognized that activities and cond......
  • Wichita Bd. of Trade v. U.S., No. 82-1808
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 28 April 1983
    ...1069 of Kansas setting aside the rate, remanding the matter to ICC, and suspending the charges until otherwise ordered by the court. 352 F.Supp. 365. (4)--July 7, 1972. Order of Supreme Court staying judgment of the Kansas court until final determination of the railroads' appeal and requiri......
  • Secretary of Agriculture of U.S. v. I. C. C., No. 76-1026
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 11 March 1977
    ...this decision was overturned by the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, Wichita Board of Trade v. United States, 352 F.Supp. 365 (D.C.Kan.1972). On appeal to the Supreme Court, the district court's decision was affirmed as to the remand to the Commission but an injuncti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT