Western Air Lines, v. Civil Aeronautics Board

22 Citing cases

  1. Archer W. Contractors, LLC v. United States Dep't of Transp.

    45 F.4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2022)

    An agency's "conclusion may be supported by substantial evidence even though a plausible alternative interpretation of the evidence would support a contrary view." Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board , 495 F.2d 145, 152 (D.C. Cir. 1974). The partiesโ€™ contract required an antimicrobial coating to "form the interior surface of the duct[s]." JA 125-26.

  2. Cooper v. Hinson

    109 F.3d 997 (4th Cir. 1997)   Cited 2 times

    Once the findings are determined to be supported by substantial evidence, the reviewing court "must accept also the conclusions drawn therefrom unless they are seen to be arbitrary or capricious, or to rest on premises that are deemed contrary to ascertainable legislative intent, or are otherwise contrary to law." Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 495 F.2d 145, 152 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (stating standard under predecessor statute, 49 U.S.C. ยง 1486(e)). III.

  3. Throckmorton v. National Transp. Safety Bd.

    963 F.2d 441 (D.C. Cir. 1992)   Cited 28 times
    Finding no due process violation where plaintiff failed to show prejudice caused by alleged errors in the administrative proceeding

    Under this standard, our function is to determine only "whether `the agency . . . could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did.'" Id. (quoting Western Air Lines, Inc. v. CAB, 495 F.2d 145, 152 (D.C. Cir. 1974)). An agency conclusion " `may be supported by substantial evidence even though a plausible alternative interpretation of the evidence would support a contrary view.'"

  4. Erickson v. National Transp. Safety Bd.

    758 F.2d 285 (8th Cir. 1985)   Cited 7 times

    Stix v.Bond, 569 F.2d 1029, 1031 (8th Cir. 1978), Doe v. Department of Transportation, 412 F.2d 674, 677 (8th Cir. 1969). We must determine whether the Agency `could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it di.' Western Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 495 F.2d 145, 152 (D.C. Cir. 1974), quoting Braniff Airways, Inc. v. CAB, 379 F.2d 453, 462 (D.C. Cir. 1967). In the present case Erickson was found to have violated 14 C.F.R. ยง 61.59(a)(2) (1983), which provides that "[N]o person may make or cause to be made * * * [a]ny fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any logbook, record, or report that is required to be kept, made, or used, to show compliance with any requirement for the issuance, or exercise of the privileges, or any certificate or rating under this part."

  5. United Air Lines, v. Civil Aeronautics Bd.

    569 F.2d 640 (D.C. Cir. 1977)   Cited 10 times

    In summary, while the Act unquestionably places limits on the power that may be exercised by the Board, the broad language of section 401 permitting the Board to place conditions in certificates as the "public interest" or "public convenience and necessity" may require does not support petitioners' narrow interpretation. In Western Air Lines v. CAB, 161 U.S.App.D.C. 319, 330, 495 F.2d 145, 156 (1969), we stated that under section 401 "[t]he Board was given the power to respond to changed economic conditions and redefinitions of the `public convenience and necessity' by adjusting the operating authority of carriers." (Emphasis added).

  6. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. C. A. B

    561 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1977)   Cited 10 times
    In Delta, the Civil Aeronautics Board ("Board") approved a merger between Delta Airlines ("Delta") and Northeast Airlines ("Northeast").

    Delta's citation of the Supreme Court's stress on "route security" as an element of Congressional concern underlying ยง 401(g) is inapposite. No merger was involved in CAB v. Delta Air Lines, 367 U.S. 316, 81 S.Ct. 1611, 6 L.Ed.2d 869 (1961), and, accordingly, no question of the Board's broad powers under ยง 408(b) arose in that case. Likewise, Delta's reliance on Western Air Lines v. CAB, 161 U.S.App.D.C. 319, 495 F.2d 145 (1974), is misplaced. Because the court in Western was dealing with a non-merger situation, its comments related solely to ยง 401(g) viewed independently of ยง 408(b). However, even accepting the court's language in Western at face value, we find no merit in Delta's position.

  7. Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. C. A. B

    551 F.2d 1293 (D.C. Cir. 1977)   Cited 9 times

    "Although this is a finding, it is in the area of prediction and projection, as to which particular latitude is accorded the agency." Western Air Lines v. CAB, 161 U.S.App.D.C. 319, 327, 495 F.2d 145, 153 (1974). The Board has the function of regulation of rates but not direct regulation of service, and it must discharge its regulation of rates in the light of a projection of the service that will be provided by the carriers in the light of the rate levels and rate profiles set by the Board.

  8. National Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. F.C.C.

    516 F.2d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1974)   Cited 30 times

    "A conclusion may be supported by substantial evidence even though a plausible alternative interpretation of the evidence would support a contrary view." Western Airlines v. CAB, 161 U.S.App.D.C. 319, 326, 495 F.2d 145, 152 (1974). The situation here is unlike the case of an agency's review of a fact finding proposed by its hearing officer.

  9. Secretary of Labor, Mine Safety & Health Administration v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

    111 F.3d 913 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 25 times
    Applying Chevron to interpretive dispute between the Secretary and the Commission

    '" Chaney Creek Coal Corp. v. FMSHRC, 866 F.2d 1424, 1431 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)); see 30 U.S.C. Section(s) 816(a)(1). An agency's conclusion "may be supported by substantial evidence even though a plausible alternative interpretation of the evidence would support a contrary view." Western Air Lines, Inc. v. CAB, 495 F.2d 145, 152 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (citation omitted). Applying this highly deferential standard, we have no trouble concluding that the Commission's decision rests on substantial evidence.

  10. Robinson v. National Transp. Safety Bd.

    28 F.3d 210 (D.C. Cir. 1994)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that a court can overturn an agency's factual findings only if it is not supported by substantial evidence

    The court's function is to determine only "whether the agency . . . could fairly and reasonably find the facts that it did." Throckmorton v. National Transp. Safety Bd., supra, 963 F.2d at 444 (quoting Chritton v. National Transp. Safety Bd., supra, 888 F.2d at 856 (in turn quoting Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 495 F.2d 145, 152 (D.C. Cir. 1974))). See 49 U.S.C. app. ยง 1486(e) ("findings of facts by the Board or Secretary of Transportation, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive").