Source: https://casetext.com/case/aero-mayflower-transit-company-v-united-states
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:38:06+00:00

Document:
James L. Beattey, Indianapolis, Ind., LaTourette Rebman, St. Louis, Mo., Knapp, Gill, Hibbert Stevens and Warren N. Grossman, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs.
Lee Loevinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert W. Ginnane, Gen. Counsel, Fritz R. Kahn, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Interstate Commerce Commission, George R. Kucik, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Francis C. Whelan, U.S. Atty., James R. Dooley, Donald A. Fareed, Asst. U.S. Attys., Los Angles, Cal., for defendants.
Tuttle Taylor and William A. Norris, Los Angeles, Cal., Rice, Carpenter Carraway and John C. Bradley, Washington, D.C., for intervenors.
Before BARNES, Circuit Judge, and MATHES and ROSS, District Judges.
This is an action to review and annul two orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission entered on May 12 and December 26, 1961, in its Docket No. MC-11,9049, granting T.E.K. Van Lines, Inc.'s application of July 10, 1959, under § 207 of the Interstate Commerce Act [ 49 U.S.C.A. § 307], to operate as a common carrier by motor vehicle over irregular routes in the transportation of "household goods" between points in Arizona, California, Idaho, Oregon, Utah and Washington, and between points in those States and points in Colorado, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming [T.E.K. Van Lines, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 86 M.C.C. 139 (1961)].
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 17(9) and 305(g), 28 U.S.C. § 1336, 1398, 2284, 2321-2325, and 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009.
Briefly stated, plaintiffs' contentions here are that the Commission erred: (1) "in certificating a new carrier service absent probative evidence that the services and abilities of present carriers are deficient or inadequate, (2) in certificating a new carrier service without probative evidence reflecting a need for the service between the points so certificated, and (3) in making and relying upon evidentiary findings contrary to the record evidence".
We have been unable to find any basis for plaintiffs' third contention that the Commission made and relied upon "evidentiary findings contrary to the record evidence". Nor does there appear any basis for criticism of the Commission's exercise of discretion under § 5(2) [49 U.S.C.A. § 5(2)], in approving the control of T.E.K. Van Lines, Inc., by other motor carriers [see: 86 M.C.C. at 142, 147-148; McLean Trucking Co. v. United States, 321 U.S. 67, 87, 64 S.Ct. 370, 88 L.Ed. 544 (1944)].
Judging the orders of the Commission under review at bar, as all orders of the Commission are entitled to be judged, by "the report, read as a whole" [United States v. Louisiana, 290 U.S. 70, 80, 54 S.Ct. 28, 33, 78 L.Ed. 181 (1933)], and by "the record as a whole out of which the report arose" [City of Yonkers v. United States, 320 U.S. 685, 695, 64 S.Ct. 327, 88 L.Ed. 400 (1944)], the orders are supported by findings which are neither arbitrary nor capricious, but are adequately sustained by the record [cf. United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 243-244, 67 S.Ct. 252, 91 L.Ed. 209 (1946)]; and there is rational basis for the administrative conclusion [Miss. Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States, 292 U.S. 282, 286, 287, 54 S.Ct. 692, 78 L.Ed. 1260 (1934)].
This action to annul the Commission's orders of May 12 and December 26, 1961 [86 M.C.C. 139], must therefore be dismissed.
Solicitors for defendants will lodge with the Clerk findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment of dismissal pursuant to Local Rule 7, West's Ann. Code, within ten days.

References: § 207
 § 307
 § 1336
 § 1009
 § 5
 § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.