The REGULAR COMMON CARRIER CONFERENCE OF the AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., et al., Petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents,
Contract Carrier Conference, Inc., Warren Transport, Inc., Heavy-Specialized Carriers Conference, Baywood Transport, Inc., et al., Leaseway Transportation Corporation, Intervenors.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued February 12, 1980.
Decided June 30, 1980.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Robert C. Bamford, Washington, D. C., with whom Roland Rice, Harry J. Jordan, and Leonard A. Jaskiewicz, Washington, D. C., were on brief, for petitioners.
John P. Fonte, Atty., I. C. C., Washington, D. C., with whom Richard A. Allen, Gen. Counsel, I. C. C., and Robert Lewis Thompson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on brief for respondents. Mark L. Evans, Christine N. Kohl, Attys., I. C. C. and Robert B. Nicholson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for respondents.
Paul F. Sullivan, Washington, D. C., was on brief for intervenor, Heavy-Specialized Carriers Conference.
Harry C. Ames, Jr., E. Stephen Heisley, Dwight L. Koerber, Jr., and Lester R. Gutman, Washington, D. C., were on brief for intervenor, Baywood Transport, Inc., et al. Norman T. Fowlkes, III, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for intervenor, Baywood Transport, Inc., et al.
Thomas A. Callaghan, Jr., and Rick A. Rude, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for intervenor, Contract Carrier Conference, Inc.
Harry J. Jordan, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for intervenor, Warren Transport, Inc.
Edward F. Schiff and Daniel Joseph, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for intervenor, Leaseway Transportation Corp.
Before McGOWAN, TAMM and ROBB, Circuit Judges.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge McGOWAN.
McGOWAN, Circuit Judge:
This petition for review raises the recurring question of whether agency action purporting to be a "general policy statement" is not something more, and therefore violative of statutory procedural and substantive limitations. In this instance we find the challenge to be unavailing, and we deny the petition.
I
The Interstate Commerce Act defines a motor contract...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
