Opinion ID: 511587
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Correctness of the District Court's Factual Findings

Text: 20 Next, Valley challenges certain findings of fact made by the district court. These findings may not be set aside on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). 21 Valley disputes two of the court's findings. First, Valley contends that the court erred in finding that Trucking acted as an intermediary between Valley or its agents and Authority on southbound shipments. Valley maintains that it delivered those shipments directly to Authority. The court's finding on this matter was essential to its holding because Tariff 205 by its terms applied only to movements of freight in which both Trucking and Authority participated. The tariff was inapplicable if Authority alone handled the freight. 22 Second, Valley argues that the court erred in finding that Trucking concurred in Tariff 205 as required by 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10762(b)(2). Both parties agree that Tariff 205 was ineffective unless Trucking concurred in it. 23 Having considered Valley's arguments and examined the record, we conclude that the district court's findings are supported by credible evidence and are not clearly erroneous.