Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/95052/icc-vs-los-angeles
Timestamp: 2020-05-24 23:12:13
Document Index: 163564638

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 402']

Icc Vs Los Angeles - Citation 95052 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
icc Vs. Los Angeles - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/95052
Case Number 280 U.S. 52
.....to abandon their existing passenger stations and terminals in a large city and erect in lieu a new union station at a new site is not conferred upon the interstate commerce commission by paragraphs 18-21 of § 1 of the amended interstate commerce act, giving the commission authority over abandonments and extensions of lines, or by paragraphs 3 and 4 of § 3, requiring carriers to afford all reasonable, proper, and equal facilities for interchange of traffic and authorizing the commission in certain circumstances to require that terminal facilities of one carrier may be used by another. railroad commission v. southern pacific co., 264 u. s. 331 , distinguished. p. 280 u. s. 67 . page 280 u. s. 53 2. whether power exists to control the interstate commerce.....
ICC v. Los Angeles - 280 U.S. 52 (1929)
U.S. Supreme Court ICC v. Los Angeles, 280 U.S. 52 (1929)
1. Power to compel interstate railway carriers to abandon their existing passenger stations and terminals in a large city and erect in lieu a new union station at a new site is not conferred upon the Interstate Commerce Commission by paragraphs 18-21 of § 1 of the amended Interstate Commerce Act, giving the Commission authority over abandonments and extensions of lines, or by paragraphs 3 and 4 of § 3, requiring carriers to afford all reasonable, proper, and equal facilities for interchange of traffic and authorizing the Commission in certain circumstances to require that terminal facilities of one carrier may be used by another. Railroad Commission v. Southern Pacific Co., 264 U. S. 331 , distinguished. P. 280 U. S. 67 .
2. Whether power exists to control the Interstate Commerce Commission by mandamus need not be decided in the absence of a meritorious case. P. 280 U. S. 71 .
This Court granted a writ of certiorari and on April 7, 1924, rendered its decision in Railroad Commission of California v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 264 U. S. 331 , wherein, in affirming the judgment of the state court, we held that the relocation of tracks, which were incidental to the proposed union passenger station, required a certificate of approval by the Interstate Commerce Commission under paragraphs 18 to 21 of § 1, Interstate Commerce Act as amended by § 402, Transportation Act of 1920 (41 Stat. 476-478), as a condition precedent to the validity of any action by the carriers or of any order by the State Railroad Commission, and that, until the Interstate Commerce Commission had acted under those paragraphs, the carriers could not be required to provide a new union station or to extend their main tracks thereto as ordered by the State Railroad Commission.
Pending the hearing of the causes in 264 U. S. 331 , the direct proceeding, referred to above, was instituted before the Interstate Commerce Commission by the City of Los Angeles, asking for an order by the Commission requiring the three railroads to build a new union station at the
of a union passenger station as sought in No. 14778, under the issues framed in the complaint therein. . . . In Alabama & Vicksburg Ry. Co. v. Jackson & Eastern Ry. Co., 271 U. S. 244 , 271 U. S. 250 , the Supreme Court said:"
Alabama Railway v. Jackson Railway, 271 U. S. 244 .
The description in the Alabama Railway Case, 271 U. S. 244 , is that of a physical connection between railroads engaged in interstate commerce, but it contains no suggestion that the junction is to include union passenger stations.
264 U. S. 264 U.S. 331, 264 U. S. 346 .