Document: 426 U.S. 476 96 S.Ct. 2160 48 L.Ed.2d 781 RALSTON PURINA COMPANY et al.v.LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD al. No. 75-1015. June 14, 1976. Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, See 429 875, 97 199. PER CURIAM. 1 This is an appeal from the judgment of a three-judge District Court setting aside and annulling decision order Interstate Commerce Commission. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. United States, 397 F.Supp. 607 (WD Ky.1975). 2 In 1973, railroads in southern territory, which lies south Ohio River east Mississippi, proposed new tariffs changing method calculating through rates on vegetable oil, cake or meal, related articles, were subject to transit privileges at various points where animal, fish, poultry feed using these ingredients was made transshipped. Certain large manufacturers protested. The Commission found that net effect would be increase articles involved had "not presented probative evidence justification" tariffs. Based testimony by protestants, "strong support this record for concluding tt shippers will divert considerable portion their traffic, railroad trucks, with establishment rule." result, found, "a loss revenue (railroads) despite assessment higher charges thus self-defeating." concluded not met burden proof just reasonable under § 15 Act, 24 Stat. 384, as amended, 49 U.S.C. 15(7), required cancel schedule. 346 I.C.C. 579, 587-588 (1973). 3 set annulled want substantial it. considered shippers' mere conjecture self-serving could accept Commission's conclusion lose It also thought it "uncontroverted" "the have incurred transportation meal," therefore "clearly established if there should diversion meal traffic predicted shippers, carriers actually better financial position than present." F.Supp., 610. 4 We reverse Court. Concededly, detailed respect anticipated credited strongly supported its conclusion. exceeded function reweighing testimony, primarily task Alton 315 15, 23-24, 62 432, 437, 86 L.Ed. 586, 595-596 (1942); Illinois C. Norfolk W. Co., 385 57, 69, 87 255, 262, 17 162, 170 (1966). On t before it, erred differing agreeing impact revenue. court relied showed only old sustained Feed outbound which, witness testified, Comm'n Tr. 28-29, did relate gain inbound Meal shipments movement when both legs together. 5 Reversed. 6 Mr. Justice POWELL took no part consideration case.

Category: 7