Court Opinion

ID: 9778307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:59:51.246151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:07.489715
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellants have forcefully argued that this case is controlled by the established principle that competing similar applications should be given a joint comparative hearing when because of economic or physical reasons all applications cannot be granted. Supporting this argument, appellants direct our attention to Cause No. 11,593, on the docket of this Court wherein appellees herein and others make the contention that the authority granted Groen-dyke, as described herein, was improperly granted because the previously granted authority to appellees destroyed any public necessity for the grant of additional authority.
It is a sufficient answer to this argument that Cause No. 11,593, has not been determined by us.
We wish to point out, however, that this issue of the necessity of a comparative hearing before the Commission on the basis that the applications before the Commission for identical service were mutually exclusive was never presented to the Commission. We have carefully read the motions to consolidate filed by appellants before the Commission and we do not find that they are grounded on this theory. Neither do we find that when the Examiner *652denied appellants the right to participate in the hearing on appellees’ applications that this theory was advanced or such contention made.
We agree with the Court in Delta Air Lines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 46, 228 F.2d 17, that when a nonfrivolous allegation of mutual exclusivity of applications is before the Commission, that the Commission should decide this issue and, if sustained, grant a full joint and comparative hearing as therein defined.
We do not believe that error can be predicated on appeal on this issue of mutual exclusivity of applications when the issue was not presented to the Commission.
The Motion is overruled.