Document: 346 U.S. 402 74 S.Ct. 151 98 L.Ed. 140 PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE CALIFORNIA, Richard E. Mittelstaedt, Justus F. Craemer et al., appellants,v.UNITED AIR LINES, Inc., Catalina Air Transport and Civil Aeronautics Board. No. 87. Argued Nov. 12, 13, 1953. Decided 30, Messrs. Welson Cline, Everett C. McKeage, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants. Mr. H. Templeton Brown, Chicago, Ill., appellee United Lines, Inc. John Davis, Washington, D.C., appellees C.A.B. PER CURIAM. 1 This case is here on appeal from a judgment of three-judge court the Northern District California. Lines v. California Public Utilities Commission, 109 F.Supp. 13. The reversed authority Service Commission Utah Wycoff, 344 237, 73 236. 2 Reversed. 3 CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in consideration or decision this case. 4 Justice DOUGLAS, with whom REED concurs, dissenting. 5 seems to me be peculiarly one relief by declaratory judgment. question whether Federal Government has jurisdiction over rates which charges transportation between points mainland Island. Island Therefore, claims jurisdiction. But Act, 52 Stat. 973, 49 U.S.C. § 401 seq., U.S.C.A. gives Board 'between places same State States through air space any place outside thereof'. both claim that flights (which 30 miles mainland) are 'high seas' therefore under exclusive That was view Court. Whether it right wrong presented decision. 6 controversy real substantial, directed file tariffs, claiming unequivocally Catalina. 7 There nothing gained requiring go long, laborious, expensive administrative hearings before only work its way hierarchy courts up again Court so we may determine not these rates. Findings local agency make will soemtimes aid reducing friction state federal governments exposing facts indicate legitimate concern complex situation where interstate intersts intertwined. No such here. It would, I assume, conceded what constitutes question. resolution manner advanced remitting commission which—if below correct—has act. 8 Declaratory Judgment 28 2201, operates within confines 'case' 'controversy' standards Constitution, see Aetna Life Ins. Co. Hartford, Conn. Haworth, 300 227, 57 461, 81 617, serves many functions other remedies were unsuited they performed 'rather clumsily' 'inadequately,' use words House Report. H.R.Rep. 1264, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2. was, among things, 'intended save tedious costly litigation ascertaining at outset controlling fact law involved, thus either concluding thereafter confining more precise limitations.' Id., And Senate Report noted served form 'the declaration rights contested statute municipal ordinance, possible necessary obtain an injunction.' S.Rep. 1005, Another adjudication disputes 'without destruction status quo.' 6. 9 Of course litigants can demand. Its allowance depends wise discretion. unless intolerant procedure Congress created, should reluctant overrule when concludes peril insecurity imminent, time expense saved good relations promoted resolving dispute inception rather than all sides exhausted end long drawnout litigation. 10 appropriate jurisdictional settled ruling law. See Order Railway Conductors America Swan, 329 520, 67 405, 91 471. kind here, act because put matter exclusively domain. In less clear enjoined proceedings after had preempted field. Rice Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 218, 1146, 1447. By token settle early stage. denying advance cause except

Category: 8