Document: 338 U.S. 572 70 S.Ct. 379 94 L.Ed. 353 CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARDv.STATE AIRLINES, Inc. STATE v. BOARD et al. PIEDMONT AVIATION, Nos. 157 to 159. Argued Dec. 12, 1949. Decided Feb. 6, 1950. Mr. Frederick W. P. Lorenzen, New York City, for State Airlines, Inc., respondent. Emory T. Nunneley, Jr., Washington, D.C., Civil Aeronautics Board. Charles H. Murchison, Jacksonville, Fla., Piedmont Aviation, Certiorari dismissed: judgment reversed. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Acting under Act 1938,1 Board (C.A.B.) consolidated some 45 route applications 25 airlines into one area proceeding, styled 'Southeastern States Case.' After hearings, it made findings fact as what new routes should be established and which applicants could best serve these routes. It then entered orders authorizing certificates convenience necessity several in area. was authorized engage air transportation persons, property, mail along certain denied authority act a carrier on any them.2 filed petition United Court Appeals District Columbia Circuit asking that court reverse remand case with directions grant instead Piedmont.3 The reversed insofar awarded but held without power direct certify State.4 A crucial ground court's reversal its finding had never an application particular certified, indispensable prerequisite certification interpreted Act. second since no failed have sufficient notice might consider competing applicant, thus deprived fair opportunity discredit Piedmont's fitness ability those third Board's fit able 'were, legal sense, arbitrary capricious lacked support substantial evidence.' Both petitioned review reversal, while cross-petitioned refusal State.5 We granted certiorari because final determination questions involved, particularly involving interpretation Act, is importance future guidance carrying out congressionally imposed functions. 812, 67. 2 Fitst. hold were permti awarded. contrary holding rested primarily § 401(d)(1) (2) language most relied by empowers issue 'authorizing whole or part covered application, if finds applicant fit, willing, perform such properly * *.' (Italics used Appeals.)6 read this showing congressional purpose bar from granting deviate more than slightly precise defined application. think narrow not compelled 401(d) refutes intent freeze procedures so rigid mold. 3 401[d][1] unqualifiedly gives power, after appropriate findings, This manifests generally gear award procedure. But Congress attempt (1) define full reach contents These subsections do even require designate terminal cities intermediate points proposed would serve. different provision, 401(b), contains only requirements directly Congress—that must writing verified.7 With exception, 401(b) provides 'shall form contain information shall regulation require.' And 1001 'conduct proceedings manner will conducive proper dispatch buiness ends justice.' Thus, except statutory requirement written verified applications, plainly intended leave free work reasonably adapted orderly administration complex responsibilities. 4 Here decided policies served proceeding. In doing did exceed procedural discretion. Only through joint hearings expeditiously decide established, any, numerous selected carriers has found, limiting all they describe destroy necessary flexibility. For decision are actually available reached until long filed. Recognizing this, Piedmont, like other airlines, inserted so-called 'catchall clause' broadly requesting transport 'the detailed herein, modification may find public also included general prayer 'for further relief, specific, Section 401 deem appropriate, entitled proceeding heard entirety.' 5 convinced Board, awarding varying specifically departed policy hinging procedures. While sought differ markedly awarded,8 hearings. All twenty-five asked somewhere area, many overlapped. exalt imaginery rights above interest hamstrung lack foresight skill draftsman describing flexible set reasonable. They accorded well-considered opinions met requirements. That verification. So far concerned, acted within entering orders. 6 Second. recognized due interested parties. nevertheless adequate encroaching State. contention largely rests we rejected. argues, however, considered possible awarded, produce evidence arguments convince 7 challenge substantial. major standard having convenient carriers. determined notice. prime allowing persons offer give advantage basis selection qualified interest. Cf. Federal Communications Commission Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 470, 477, 642, 60 693, 698, 84 869, 1037. If neglected purpose, rightly complain. 8 Here, fully appreciated responsibility respect. seems plain us entire record recognize potential competitive proceedings. Their large same Each argued against before 9 Moreover, issuance order, limited rehearing show, could, reopened enable ability. argument, State's main jurisdiction nature already contended known actual competitor, diligent efforts cross-examination otherwise prevent qualifications superior State's. reveals gave careful consideration contentions counsel. discussed each contentions. C.A.B. 716. reference refute qualifications, said: 'Although course subsequent argument asserted been aware situation presented additional enlarged upon inquiries case, reconsideration, specify been.'9 Id., at 721. setting inadequate justify concerning respective Piedmont. reaffirming previous 'The practical approach can taken cases type view how individual proposal benefit whether required precisely forth rather objective establishing sound pattern involved.'10 722. 10 adopted given paramount correct standard. conclusion represents informed searching inquiry, accept conclusion. Because foregoing circumstances disclosed there hearing. See Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha R. Co. States, 322 1, 3, 64 842, 843, 88 1093. 11 Third. During counsel member took position 'not capable running awarded.' He replied: 'We taking both able, it's question demonstrated willing able.' contends here, held, contention, others, almost wholly applied evidenced handle emphasized over mountains, whereas passenger crossed mountains; contrasted shown crossing mountains. Precisely added skills, flights across mountains matter proof. extensive Much concerned financial condition experience aviation show painstaking evidence. found between two weighted side. supported 12 our need allegations cross-petition No. 158 therefore dismissed. 159 ordered. 13 DOUGLAS case. 14 REED, whom FRANKFURTER joins, dissenting. 15 deny exclusive privilege serving applicant's private profit. involves choice among individuals; guardian national arbiter conflicting concerns various communities. interests protected important legislated insure seeking unique insulated competition. provides, 52 Stat. 987, 401: 16 'Application Certificate 17 '(b) Application certificate Authority verified, information, accompanied proof service require. 'Notice 18 '(c) Upon filing thereof posting office secretary determine. Any person file protest memorandum opposition certificate. Such hearing, dispose speedily possible. 19 'Issuance 20 '(d) properly, conform provisions rules, regulations, hereunder, necessity; denied.' 21 provide frame discretion freely move. exercised frame, courts interfere. placed great, damage error cause irreparable, insist strictly followed. 22 followed here. 1945 common hearing particularized statute air-line companies documents forty-five specific routes, considerably, extends roughly Maryland Florida, Virginia Missouri. settling few Commission, anyone, quite route. How much differed seen readily glance maps U.S.App.D.C. 374, 377, 174 F.2d 510, page 513. says 'markedly.' 23 An administrative body follow carefully laid down protect absolutism. To mere search precision. knew time apply does failure State, others well, contest fairly crystallized. 24 Since lay procedure, enough call public, presentation, fanciful assume done inferred statement first 'a close difficult question.' 863, 901. when granted, issue, least mind shifted. At point 'Yes, apart legalisms, isn't real mistake picked who cannot run route? really get try interest, point?' necessity. I see objection separately single region together. framework 'area proceeding' procedure deciding 'area,' permitted amend their material changes make 401(c) statute, attention lines municipalities directed controlling line 'proper dispatch' business requires. 26 true well result again award, amended notice, and, least, competitors preparation regular course. 27 affirmed. 973, 49 U.S.C. seq., U.S.C.A. seq. reported. 863; 585 judicial 1006 1024, 646, 646. 510. Docket 157; 159; 158. There slight immaterial variants relevant appears 401(d). Those subsections, italicized Appeals, read: '(1) chapter (originally Act) denied. '(2) temporary transportation, periods necessity, hereunder.' 1938, amended, 401(b). charting indicating nearly approximated take either airline, said maps. makes unnecessary elaborate views applied. counsel, near end 'had routes' proven original 'facilities types overhaul.' suggestion request reopen point. considered, financing obtain equipment, cousideration determining comparative propose operate newly cited opinion, American Export Trans-Atlantic Service, 16, 38 (1940). sentences during indicate wrong interest: departs 'public convenience, necessity.' itself pointed interest.' he went say thing you win wins people North Carolina Kentucky kind should.'

Category: 7