Document: 368 U.S. 324 82 S.Ct. 337 7 L.Ed.2d 317 A. L. MECHLING BARGE LINES, INC., et al., Appellants,v.UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission. No. 41. Argued Nov. 8 9, 1961. Decided Dec. 18, Edward B. Hayes, Chicago, Ill., for appellants. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., appellees, the United States Donald Tolmie, Intervening Railroads. Mr. Justice Brennan delivered opinion Court. 1 In December 1958 appellee railroads published filed with Commission tariffs establishing through combination rates, from grain producing areas in Northern Illinois to certain Eastern destinations, which were lower than local or flat rates same commodities Chicago destinations. Since these would be violation long-and short-haul provisions § 4(1) Act,1 simultaneously applied administrative relief is authorized by first proviso 4(1).2 Timely protests appellant barge lines, alleging that proposed railroad threatened extinction legitimate competition water carriers traffic into Chicago. On January 1959, Division 2 entered Fourth Section Order 19059, authorizing rates—although expressly withholding approval them—pending further action.3 The was before any hearing had been held investigation completed, did not set out findings. day, ordered an instituted respect lawfulness rates.4 Pending final determination as whether permanent warranted, after 19059 effect 10 months, lines action review presently sought, District Court Missouri. complaint based part on statutory procedure orders,5 it prayed court aside ground lacked power grant protested without completing a full investigation, holding adversary hearing, making explicit findings criteria granting such met.6 also sought under Declaratory Judgments Act7 judicial Administrative Procedure Act;8 alleged challenged practice continuing one, declaration beyond powers 3 action, eliminated long-haul discrimination their notified letter withdrawal application respecting granted temporary relief. Having intervened defendants pending lawsuit, railroads, together Commission, then moved dismissal grounds, first, prayer annulment rendered cause moot; and, second, jurisdiction declaratory judgment.9 motions dismiss. 188 F.Supp. 386. perfected this appeal 28 U.S.C. 1253, U.S.C.A. we postponed decision our until merits. 365 865, 81 901, 5 857. 4 We are, course, event empowered obliged determine jurisdictional questions deciding correctly dismissed case. And necessarily initial inquiry appeal. Appellants do deny devoid practical effect, inasmuch relates has withdrawn. Still, they insist case neither moot nor inappropriate First, appellants assert brief 'have interest having F.S.O. vacated since defense against damages suffered railroads' fourth section departure rates.' point, connection, decisions10 suggest them will precluded attacking collaterally order must aside, if at all, direct review. 6 v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 36, 71 104, 95 L.Ed. expressed view party should concluded subsequent litigation Court's resolution issues, when appellate judgment incorporating resolution, otherwise available right, fails because intervening mootness. there principle implemented reviewing court's vacating unreviewed below.11 think enunciated Munsingwear least equally applicable orders, adopt its here. have declined review.12 disposition rests solely mootness occasioned elimination discrimination, taken foreclosing determination, appropriate future occasion, (a) enter utilizing procedures did; (b) effective authorize departures related; (c) pendency establishes carry intention us predicate damage suit statute. Of here intimate no may exist favor competing carrier predicated departure. Second, 'the * 'temporary' authority Railroads over authority' 'continuing' actual controversy within resolve judgment.13 significant aspect has, appeal, conceded make fatally defective supporting made. represents amended accordingly. It thus appears one practices whose validity adjudicate continues longer. Nor decide juncture required hold evidentiary prior 'temporary relief.' Despite Commission's present insistence so required, experience newly adopted all Orders lead provide hearing—at some circumstances. 9 remedy committed discretion. need discretion ought exercised. Public Service Utah Wycoff Co., 344 237, 73 236, 97 291. sound withholds where 'continuing practice' is, moment adjudication undergoing modification ultimate form cannot confidently predicted. not, therefore, reach possibly difficult appellants' challenge gives rise controversy, pleadings possessed render judgment.14 dismissing modified proceedings are remanded direction vacate 19059. ordered. 11 modified. 12 CLARK, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACK DOUGLAS join, dissenting. 13 Believing still exists case, I agree moot. my opinion, events occurring filing negated necessity issues raised complaint, three-judge remand instructions pass issues. 14 lack statutorily findings, permitting impose higher transportation 'for shorter longer distance line route.' asked unlawful Act engage whereby illegal orders continuous series utilized by-pass long- Act. question shortly filed. twofold: (1) order, (2) used 15 thought accompanied permission left meaningless issue. This overlooks fact between railroads. Neither concession invalidity vacation pursuant determinative order's validity. Upon issue ability collect assuming plausible theory liability (a now decide). For indicating saved possibility 'be basis proceedings,' see Southern Pacific Terminal Co. Comm., 219 498, 515, 31 279, 283, 55 310 (1911). Moreover, note barred challenging later suit—the point relied upon majority affirming—does 16 If only aid might brought, formally take below affirmance Brethren. However, second complaint,1 i.e., circumvention utilization stream well gave birth it, disputed very 17 complain consists imposition tariff charged line; issuance necessary 4(1); maintenance long possible delaying application; whenever test imminent, thereby frustrating claimed continually repeating process kept rail lines. 18 court, although recognizing felt justiciable controversy. affirms result saying regardless presents withhold renounced practice. placed itself dubious position upholding never exercised presented. am mystified tactic exercises initially trial avoid 'possibly questions' properly 19 interpreted raises practice.2 Even though exercise relief, either injunctive declaratory, called for; however, feel partial repentance compels refuse Rather representation considered along other circumstances affidavits indicate show afforded opportunity.3 Furthermore, preceding cases played hanky-panky years effort attract freight away waterways.4 20 To sum up, time charge intervenors following using frustrate purpose Congress 'so administered recognize preserve inherent advantages' 'all modes subject (thereto) *.' Based declared enjoined Under record presented, convinced heard could amenable consideration thereon, including whether, discretion, declarative instruction, accordance Bryan Austin, 354 933, 77 1396, 1527 (1957), request leave amend meet changed condition brought about void, renouncement Indeed, chose damages, too included amendment, claim single judge court. Compare supra; State Missouri Brashear Freight Lines, 312 621, 61 784, 85 1083 (1941). 24 Stat. 380, amended, 49 4(1), 4(1): 'It shall common chapter title receive greater compensation aggregate passengers, like kind property, route direction, being 'Provided, That carrier, special cases, less distances passengers prescribe extent designated relieved operation foregoing section, but exercising conferred proviso, permit establishment more distant reasonably compensatory service performed; authorization account merely potential actually existence Jan. Grain Products East. Docket 32790, Corn, Oats, Soybeans Jurisdiction enjoin Courts 1336, 1336. 1398 locates venue district plaintiff's residence principal office. 2322 makes nominal defendant, 2323 authorizes intervention interested party, 2325 requires actions determined requirement rate haul 'reasonably compensatory' had, authoritative gloss, imbued four distinct criteria, namely, described '(1) cover extra additional expenses incurred handling applies; existing competition; (3) low threaten carriers; (4) undue burden jeopardize return value property generally, contemplated 15a act (49 15a).' §§ 2201, 2202, 2202. 60 243, 1009, 1009. As argued 'actual controversy' meaning forth 5, supra incorporate provision exclusive mode orders. Lambert Run Coal Baltimore & Ohio R. 258 377, 42 349, 66 671 (shipper's compel allotment cars contravention I.C.C. rules federal procedure); Venner Michigan Central 271 127, 46 444, 70 868 (stockholder's acquiring equipment Callanan Road Imp. States, 345 507, 803, 1209 (authority certificate proceeding interpret certificate). Such long-standing civil cases. See 39—40, 2, 106—107, 36; Cozart Wilson, 352 884, 126, 82. Atchison, T. S.F.R. Dixie Carriers, 355 179, 78 258, 186, Court, apprised attack superseded mooted directions dismiss complaint—thus leaving unannulled. consider established precedent demanding adherence here, parties joined representing 'is academic interest.' Memorandum Suggesting Cause Moot, p. 3. informing application, understanding issued response Application cancelled discontinued.' state several previous occasions failed applications, citing Coastwise Line D.C. 157 305; American Commercial Barge Civ. 11772 (S.D.Tex.1959), superseding 186. supra. even determining Analysis reveals 'still follows entering findings.' requested absence fourth-section definitely established.' Also, noted become entry 'just similar Supreme Court.' factors include evidence that, 1959 alone, eight separate applications involved obtained; year acted Commission; two withdrawn face tests; five awaiting half years; avowedly designed divert lost thousands tons shipments per year. Mechling, 330 567, 67 894, 91 1102 (1947); Inland Waterways Corp., 319 671, 692—703, 63 1296, 1307—1313, 87 1655 (dissenting opinion) (1943). Also cited opinion.

Category: 8