Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

A E Pacific Const. Co. v. Saipan Stevedore

888 F.2d 68 (9th Cir. 1989)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
A E Pacific Const. Co. v. Saipan Stevedore

8 Citing cases

  1. Hillblom v. U.S.

    896 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1990)   Cited 46 times
    Upholding district court's refusal to "declare the inapplicability to the Northern Mariana Islands of any law `which substantially affects the lives of the inhabitants"'

    To further the goal of self-governance, the Covenant provides that Articles I, II, III and Sections 501 and 805 of the Covenant cannot be modified without mutual consultation and agreement between the CNMI and United States Government. A E Pacific v. Saipan Stevedore, 888 F.2d 68, 71 (9th Cir. 1989). Finally, section 902 of the Covenant sets forth provisions for regular consultations between the two governments, "[a]t the request of either Government, and not less frequently than every ten years."

  2. In re Vehicle Carrier Servs. Antitrust Litig.

    846 F.3d 71 (3d Cir. 2017)   Cited 92 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting Congressional intent to remove the courts from the regulation of ocean liner shipping and instead provide "a predictable legal regime and streamlined regulatory process administered and enforced by a single independent Federal agency (the [FMC]) to better serve the needs of U.S. foreign commerce."

    A & E Pac. Constr. Co. v. Saipan Stevedore Co., 888 F.2d 68, 71 (9th Cir. 1989). Either on a complaint filed by a private party, 46 U.S.C. § 41301(a), or its own motion, the FMC may investigate alleged violations of the Shipping Act, id.§ 41302.

  3. Maritrend, Inc. v. Galveston Wharves

    152 F.R.D. 543 (S.D. Tex. 1993)   Cited 5 times

    Thus, while no private party may sue for damages or for injunctive relief under the antitrust laws for conduct falling within the purview of the Act, the FMC is empowered to order reparations, including double damages, to impose sanctions and penalties for prohibited conduct, and to file suit in federal district court against the offending party. A & E Pacific Construction Co. v. Saipan Stevedore Co., 888 F.2d 68, 71 (9th Cir.1989). Moreover, agreements between common carriers under the Shipping Act of 1916, once approved by the FMC are exempt from the antitrust laws. U.S. Lines, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Commission, 584 F.2d 519 (D.C.Cir.1978).

  4. U.S. v. Gosselin World Wide Moving, N.V

    411 F.3d 502 (4th Cir. 2005)   Cited 30 times
    Stating "[I]t is settled by the maxim that exceptions to the antitrust laws should be construed narrowly."

    Regulation under the 1916 Act thus preserved some anti-competitive prohibitions. See id.; A E Pacific Const. Co. v. Saipan Stevedore Co., Inc., 888 F.2d 68, 71 (9th Cir. 1989); Plaquemines, 838 F.2d at 542-43. Nonetheless, regulated firms did enjoy the real benefit of operating outside the full strictures of federal antitrust laws.

  5. Magana v. Com. of the N. Mariana Islands

    107 F.3d 1436 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 173 times
    Holding that plaintiff's claim that she was "Filipino" was a sufficient basis for § 1981 relief

    To further the goals of self-governance, the Covenant provides that Articles I, II, and III and Sections 501 and 805 of the Covenant cannot be modified without mutual consultation and agreement between the CNMI and the United States government. A E Pacific Const. Co. v. Saipan Stevedore Co., 888 F.2d. 68, 71 (9th Cir. 1989). As this court has previously stated:

  6. U.S. ex Rel. Richards v. De Leon Guerrero

    4 F.3d 749 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 33 times
    Ruling that the Commonwealth's interest in self-government must be weighed against the interests of the federal government in order to determine whether actions of the United States that are not clearly authorized by the Covenant are nevertheless permissible

    See, e.g., Hillblom v. United States, 896 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1990); A E Pac. Constr. Co. v. Saipan Stevedore Co., 888 F.2d 68 (9th Cir. 1989). Indeed, the legal question we now face was previously before the district court when the CNMI government resisted an audit by the Inspector General in 1989.

  7. In re Vehicle Carrier Servs. Antitrust Litig.

    Master Docket No.: 13-3306 (ES) (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2015)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Thus, "while no private party may sue for damages or for injunctive relief under the antitrust laws for conduct [prohibited by the Shipping Act], the FMC is empowered to order reparations, including double damages, to impose sanctions and penalties for prohibited conduct, and to file suit in federal district court against the offending party." A & E Pac. Const. Co. v. Saipan Stevedore Co., 888 F.2d 68, 71 (9th Cir. 1989). The Shipping Act is undeniably silent on the availability of private remedies under state law.

  8. Minto Explorations Ltd. v. Pac. & Arctic Ry. & Navigation Co.

    3:11-cv-00031 JWS (D. Alaska Aug. 12, 2011)

    Maritrend, 152 F.R.D. at 555. Id. (quoting A & E Pacific Construction Co. v. Saipan Stevedore Company, Inc., 888 F.2d 68, 72 n.6 (9th Cir. 1989)). Minto contends that the court should not dismiss Count II because Minto's complaint also seeks injunctive relief which the "FMC is not authorized to grant."