Court Opinion

ID: 9662446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:08:54.366761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:38.910271
License: Public Domain

STEEL, District Judge (concurring).
I, like the majority, find it unnecessary to resolve the issue whether Newton’s “agricultural commodities” and “farm produce” certificates should be interpreted as the Commission asserts was intended at the time of their issuance or should be accorded the meaning attributed to “agricultural commodities” in section 203(b) (6) of the Interstate Commerce Act by the Supreme Court in Home Transfer & Storage Co. v. United States, 141 F.Supp. 599 (D.C.Wash. 1956), aff’d. per cur., 352 U.S. 884, 77 S.Ct. 129, 1 L.Ed.2d 82 (1956). I, therefore, refrain from expressing any view on this question, even by way of dictum, as has the majority of the Court. Otherwise, I concur in its opinion.