Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. v. United States

8 Citing cases

  1. Miller Transporters, Inc. v. United States

    594 F.2d 463 (5th Cir. 1979)   Cited 14 times
    In Miller Transporters, Inc. v. United States (5th Cir. 1979), 594 F.2d 463, a motor carrier applicant sought authority to transport petroleum products throughout Alabama, Florida and Georgia. Two opposing carriers argued that the applicant's evidence concerning eleven (11) Alabama supply points would not support authority for the whole state because such evidence did not represent a majority of the supply points.

    A representative showing of need gives rise to an inference that all points in a given area will benefit from new service. In endorsing the representative showing approach, the court in Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. v. United States, 314 F. Supp. 197 (D.N.J. 1970) (three-judge court), found it sufficient that "the Commission considered the areas of operation as a whole and deduced that the conditions prevailing in the representative parts existed generally throughout the entire area served." 314 F. Supp. at 202.

  2. Union Mechling v. United States

    390 F. Supp. 411 (W.D. Pa. 1974)   Cited 4 times

    SCNO contends that testimony as to need for improvement of service at a representative number of points between the Missouri and the Tennessee Rivers raises the rebuttable inference of a need for similar improvement at other points within the same area but along different rivers (the Cumberland and the Green) as to which no specific testimony was offered. Atlanta-New Orleans Motor Freight Co. v. United States, 197 F. Supp. 364, 369 (N.D.Ga. 1961); Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. v. United States, 314 F. Supp. 197, 202 (D.N.J. 1970); American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. United States, 373 F. Supp. 252 (W.D.Tex., Austin Division, 1973). Because SCNO has introduced evidence demonstrating the desirability of improved service between the Missouri and the Tennessee, this court cannot say that the Commission acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in concluding that an improved service was desirable for those shippers on the Green and Cumberland Rivers. The fact that there was no direct testimony with respect to the need and/or desirability of SCNO's service to the above Rivers does not require the deletion of these Rivers from the grant under review.

  3. American Trucking Associations v. I.C.C.

    669 F.2d 957 (5th Cir. 1982)   Cited 30 times
    In American Trucking Associations Inc. v. ICC, 669 F.2d 957 (5th Cir. 1982) (ATA II), the Fifth Circuit issued a writ of mandamus enforcing ATA I, along with an opinion clarifying its initial decision.

    Nothing in this opinion alters the requirements for what constitutes a representative showing. See Miller Transporters, Inc. v. United States, 594 F.2d 463, 466 (5th Cir. 1979) ("The practice of permitting area wide authority on the basis of only a representative showing of the need for new service throughout the area is amply supported by precedent."); National Trailer Convoy, Inc. v. United States, 381 F. Supp. 878, 882 (N.D.Okl. 1973) (three judge court), aff'd sub nom. Morgan Drive Away, Inc. v. United States, 416 U.S. 976, 94 S.Ct. 2377, 40 L.Ed.2d 755 (1974); Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. v. United States, 314 F. Supp. 197, 202 (D.N.J. 1970) (three-judge court). We reserve judgment on whether the claim made by the household goods intervenors that the ICC has improperly held that they are not proper parties to protest the grant of contract carrier household goods authority is properly before us.

  4. Appleyard's Motor Transp. Co. v. I.C.C.

    592 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1979)   Cited 8 times

    See United States v. Dixie Highway Express, Inc., 389 U.S. 409, 411, 88 S.Ct. 539, 540, 19 L.Ed.2d 639, 641 (1967); Schaffer Transportation Co. v. United States, 355 U.S. 83, 90-91, 78 S.Ct. 173, 177, 2 L.Ed.2d 117, 122 (1957). See also Union Mechling v. United States, 390 F. Supp. 391, 405 (W.D.Pa. 1974); Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. v. United States, 314 F. Supp. 197, 201-02 (D.N.J. 1970). In a future needs case such as this, the ICC's judgment is to be accorded great weight.

  5. Ward Trucking Corp. v. United States

    574 F.2d 168 (3d Cir. 1978)   Cited 2 times
    In Ward Trucking Corp. v. United States, 574 F.2d 168, 170 (3d Cir. 1978), we noted the protestant's concession "that the Commissioner is not bound by restrictions which have been stipulated by the parties where such restrictions fail to achieve results consistent with the public interest and inimical to practicable and effective regulation."

    49 U.S.C. § 307(a). Congress has determined that the Commission, with its expertise in the field of transportation, shall have the power to determine what is in the public convenience and necessity. 49 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., specifically § 304. Artus Trucking Co., Inc. v. I. C. C., 377 F. Supp. 1224 (E.D.N.Y. 1974); Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. v. United States, 314 F. Supp. 197 (D.N.J. 1970). This Court may set an agency decision aside that is found to have been "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accord with the law," 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), or if the decision is "unsupported by substantial evidence," 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(E).

  6. Hudson Trans. Lines, Inc. v. United States

    562 F.2d 174 (2d Cir. 1977)   Cited 3 times

    The defect in the certificate is sufficient to require setting the order aside, even if the occasion were one authorizing a special or charter operations motor common carrier certificate. Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. v. United States, D.N.J. 1970, 314 F.Supp. 197, 203-204. Division 1 has said, Latin Express Service, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 1977, 126 M.C.C. 580, 590-591, in refusing the common carrier authority recommended by the Administrative Law Judge where the application was put forward as one for authority to serve a particular, allegedly unserved class-need:

  7. National Trailer Convoy, Inc. v. United States

    381 F. Supp. 878 (N.D. Okla. 1973)   Cited 6 times

    Moreover proof is not required for each and every point involved in supporting an application for extended authority. Hudson Transit Lines, Inc., v. United States, 314 F. Supp. 197, 202 (D.N.J.); Transit Homes, Inc. v. United States, 299 F. Supp. 950, 955 (D.S.C.); Atlanta-New Orleans Motor Freight Co. v. United States, 197 F. Supp. 364, 368-369 (N.D.Ga.). It is true that the proof was not detailed and strong as to the inadequacy of service and the need for new authority throughout the entire nation as granted. Nevertheless, we cannot say that there was not substantial evidence for the Commission's finding that present and future public convenience and necessity required the new operation by Chandler. On consideration of the proof as a whole, including that of the individual shippers and the DOD, we are satisfied there is substantial evidence supporting the Commission's findings, and this determination is as far as we may go. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Jersey City, supra; Virginian R. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 663, 47 S.Ct. 222, 71 L.Ed. 463. The determination of the public interest is the business of the Commission under the very terms of the statute.

  8. Graves Trucking v. Public Service Com'n

    490 N.E.2d 365 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 3 times

    was entitled to conclude that the supporting shipper testimony concerning public need at the eleven (11) points was representative of needs throughout Alabama. After discussing several other cases using the representative showing of need standard, the court concluded: The cases cited in Miller Transporters, Inc., supra, all endorsed the representative showing of public need approach: Midwest Coast Transport, Inc. v. I.C.C. (8th Cir. 1976), 536 F.2d 256, 260 (representative points in Minnesota and Wisconsin were sufficient to justify authority over the entire area of those two states); National Trailer Convoy, Inc. v. United States (N.D. Okla. 1973), 381 F. Supp. 878, 882 (representative points held sufficient to justify nationwide authority); American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. United States (W.D.Tex. 1973), 373 F. Supp. 252, 256 (representative showing throughout area sought raised rebuttable presumption that need shown extended to those points for which there was no testimony); Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. v. United States (D.N.J. 1970), 314 F. Supp. 197, 202 (area for which authority sought should be considered as a whole, permitting inference that conditions existing at representative points in that area existed generally throughout); Atlanta-New Orleans Motor Freight Co. v. United States (N.D.Ga. 1961), 197 F. Supp. 364, 368 (evidence showing public need for 22 out of 150 geographical points in the sought after area of authority held to be sufficient representative showing as requiring evidence from every point would be unreasonable). "We decline to play a numbers game designed to devise a precise formula as to whether evidence of the need for service at 10 points is enough to justify service at 20 or 30 more. It would have been an unreasonable burden to require McKenzie to adduce proof concerning even a majority of the many small towns in Alabama already served by Miller and Chem-Haulers. McKenzie produced public witnesses who complained of the existing service of Miller and Chem-Haulers and who contemplated additional future requir