Legal Document

444 U.S. 4 100 Supreme Court Reporter 16 62 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 5 UNITED STATES et al.v.BENMAR TRANSPORT AND LEASING CORP. al. Number 78-1602. Oct. 15, 1979. PER CURIAM. 1 This case is here on certiorari to the of Appeals for Second Circuit, which set aside an order Interstate Commerce Commission authorizing respondent Consolidated Truck Service, Inc., begin contract carrier service in competition with Benmar Transport & Leasing Corporation The order, issued October 5, 1977, was defective because it lacked statutorily required finding that consistent " 'with public interest and national transportation policy,' [210] Act, 49 Code KF62 § 310 [now 10930(a) (1976 ed., Supp. II)]." versus ICC, 582 Federal Reporter, 2nd 246, 248 (1978). 2 arqued July 17, 1978, decided August 16, 1978. In reaching its decision, refused consider two subsequent orders remedied defect. first these orders, consent all interested parties almost six months before oral argument Appeals, reopened administrative proceedings made by 310. second, April 18, denied Benmar's petition review former order. denial became Commission's final had effect reaffirming earlier decision grant Consolidated's application a permit. Although question briefed whether supported evidence, declined examine ground only properly 1977. It thus vacated remanded further proceedings. 3 We reverse judgment Appeals. American Farm Lines Black Ball Freight 397 532, 90 1288, 25 547 (1970), this held broad powers "reverse, change, or modify" decisions "are plainly adequate add findings firm them up as deems desirable, absent any collision interference District Court." Id., at 541, S.Ct., 1293. (The applicable statute then provided three-judge Court, rather than Appeals.) Here action did not interfere manner acted court ready hear arguments merits received record. All concurred reopen hold judicial abeyance pending disposition review. position parties—both those who prevailed lost Commission—is convincingly demonstrated fact no party has filed brief support reached As said Lines, supra, "[t]he concept 'of indivisible jurisdiction must be one tribunal other may fit' some statutory schemes, . but does fit one." U.S., 1293-1294. After abolition "forms action" early common law, forms we have buried, they still rule us from their graves." KF105 F3 Maitland, Forms Action Common Law (1936). Orderly rules procedure are necessary appellate agency findings, empty formalities devoid either substantive procedural benefit place normal scheme unless Congress chooses there. quite clearly chosen impose such virtually meaningless requirements insisted upon.* inconsistent spirit animated therefore Reversed. 6 Mr. Justice MARSHALL, dissenting. 7 today summarily reverses Circuit setting concededly finding. takes after been without seeking permission taking proper steps. N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions dissent. 8 Since timetable involved important issue presented, out more fully below. Respondent ICC January 13, There were petitions reconsideration time. Thereafter, counsel notified patently lack own motion 27, extension time file record briefs, granted until March 8, reopening receipt new evidence February reply 1978—well deadline filing briefs Meanwhile, 7, day due court, moved petition. Before could motion, Clerk informed alternative intended withdraw subject reinstatement within 30 days attempted draft stipulation effect, ever court. On reconsideration, making 27 final. amended review, schedule established 9 light history, astounding majority can assert "the record." simply ignored limits thereby prevented altogether. solely deign comply scheduling even bother move second extension. Such actions litigant should condoned Court.* 10 upon relies so heavily, controlling. there multiparty proceeding ICC. Some carriers Commission, while temporarily restrained operation ICC's original affect petitions. For whose "no retained "jurisdiction complete process." 1294 (emphasis added). reason "both tribunals jurisdiction" matter. Ibid., quotingWrather-Alvarez Broadcasting, Incorporated FCC, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 327, 646, 649 (1957). stressed, however, "did act inconsistently" "in full harmony court's jurisdiction." 541-542, 1294. 11 concurrent-jurisdiction inapplicable present case. At parties. addition, already noted, Instead, through forced forgo exercise litigants themselves would briefs. meant give power stall Contrary assertions majority, preventing being effectively deprived willful ignoring hardly constitutes "empty formalities." encourages * dissenting opinion makes bald statement court." 246 (1978), lends statement. petitioned consented along heard completed proceedings, 1978—an reviewable pursuant 28 §§ 2341-2349. over dispute. Rather, apparent insist formality," stated "when seeks reconsider action, remand agency." F.2d, 248. If avoid genuine Appeals," different But since conclude interference, mere fatal when reopening. See supra. conceded facts render revised much less require specific language lower aware conclusion delayed Commission. majority's repeated assertion ignores history change litigants, like owe obligation delay

Classification Label: 8