Yourga Trucking, Inc. v. United States

• Decision Date: 20 November 1969
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 68-883.
• Citation: 308 F. Supp. 625
• Parties: YOURGA TRUCKING, INC. v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission and The Kaplan Trucking Company, Daniels Motor Freight, Inc., Akron-Chicago, Inc. and Great Lakes Express Company.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

308 F. Supp. 625

YOURGA TRUCKING, INC. v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission and The Kaplan Trucking Company, Daniels Motor Freight, Inc., Akron-Chicago, Inc. and Great Lakes Express Company.

Civ. A. No. 68-883.

United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

Argued October 28, 1969.

Decided November 20, 1969.

Harold G. Hernly, Wrape & Hernly, Washington, D. C., Henry M. Wick, Jr., Delisi, Wick & Vuono, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

John H. D. Wigger, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for the United States.

Philip W. Getts, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C., for I.C.C.

Rex Eames, Eames, Petrillo, Wilcox & Nelson, Detroit, Mich., for Akron-Chicago, Inc. and Great Lakes Express Co.

John McMahon, George, Greek, King, McMahon & McConnaughey, Columbus, Ohio, Arthur Diskin, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Kaplan Trucking Co. and Daniels Motor Freight, Inc.

Before ALDISERT, Circuit Judge, and DUMBAULD and ROSENBERG, District Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.

Yourga Trucking, Inc. instituted this suit to annul, enjoin and set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission denying the plaintiff's application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity. This three-judge court has been convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2325 and 2284.

Yourga has engaged in the business of transporting iron and steel within the state of Pennsylvania since 1948. Its headquarters and trucking facilities have throughout this time been located in Wheatland, Pennsylvania, in close proximity to the manufacturing plants of its customers. In May, 1965, plaintiff obtained temporary authority from the Interstate Commerce Commission to transport steel from the Wheatland/Sharon area to New York, New Jersey and Michigan. This temporary authority was granted to Yourga and other truckers to meet the increased traffic in steel deliveries resulting from a threatened nationwide steel strike.

In June, 1965, Yourga sought to obtain authorizations from the ICC to conduct these interstate operations on a permanent basis. The application was consolidated with thirty-one others seeking similar action. The hearing examiner concluded that Yourga should receive permanent certification for deliveries to New York and New Jersey but not Michigan. Rejecting this evaluation, Division I of the ICC determined that existing carrier facilities were adequate to meet shipping demands and that, therefore, no additional permanent certificates should issue. Yourga contends that this conclusion finds no substantial support in the evidence.

It is well established that in weighing the requirements of public need and convenience, the judgment of the Commission and not the court must prevail. In United States v. Pierce Auto Lines, 327 U.S. 515, 535, 66 S.Ct. 687, 698, 90 L.Ed. 821 (1946), the Supreme Court emphatically defined the role of the court of review vis-a-vis the commission:

"It is not true * * * that `* * * the courts must in a litigated case, be the arbiters of the paramount public interest.' This is rather the business of the Commission, made such by the very terms of the statute. The function of the reviewing court is much more restricted. It is limited to ascertaining whether there is warrant in the law and the facts for what the Commission has done. * * * It cannot substitute its own view concerning what should be done * * * for the Commission's judgment upon matters committed to its determination, if that has support in the record and the applicable law."

To what degree the Commission's conclusions must be supported by the record has also been resolved. In Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951), the Court ruled that the Commission's order must be supported by "substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole," and in Illinois Central R. Co. v. Norfolk & Western R. Co., 385 U.S. 57, 66, 87 S.Ct. 255, 260, 17 L.Ed.2d 162 (1966), substantial evidence was characterized as that which would be "enough to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury."

Applying these principles to the present case, we have no difficulty in...