Court Opinion

ID: 9517239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:11:00.223342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:59.732343
License: Public Domain

BOHANON, District Judge
(dissenting).
The undersigned Judge is in receipt of the Memorandum Opinion and Order prepared and submitted by Hon. William J. Holloway, Jr. in the above captioned case, to which I dissent.
My views are set out as follows:
On September 8, 1972, this cause came on for consideration by the Court upon the petition and application of National Trailer Convoy, Inc., the original plaintiff, and Morgan Drive Away, Inc., and *884Transit Homes, Inc., intervening plaintiffs, seeking an interlocutory injunction against the defendants, Interstate Commerce Commission, United States of America, and Chandler Trailer Convoy, Inc., to restrain them from authorizing operations under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued to the defendant, Chandler Trailer Convoy, Inc. (ICC Docket No. 114004, Sub. No. 66, Chandler Trailer Convoy, Inc., Extension — 49, Motor Carrier Cases, ICC 436) and any reissuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity by the defendants in said docket pending final determination by this Court.
The Court heard arguments and admitted certain exhibits and affidavits pertaining to the application for interlocutory injunction, and
It was developed at the hearing that a full and complete record of the proceedings before defendant, Interstate Commerce Commission, was unavailable for filing and for consideration, and
It was also brought out before the Court that plaintiff-petitioner and the intervenors have pending before the Interstate Commerce Commission timely, adequate and proper pleadings for the introduction of additional evidence vital to a fair and proper determination of this cause.
Equitable considerations, under all of the circumstances presented, and in the absence of a full record and the further testimony sought to be offered by petitioner and intervenors, requires that the interlocutory injunction being sought should be granted to avoid irreparable injury to some of the parties or to the public.
The record before the Court clearly establishes that irreparable injury to the plaintiff and intervenors will follow if the certificate of public convenience and necessity remains in force so as to permit Chandler Trailer Convoy, Inc., to commence operations; and if Chandler Trailer Convoy, Inc., is permitted to commence operations, it will expend large sums of money, and if ultimately it is determined that the certificate was wrongfully issued, then Chandler will suffer irreparable inj ury.
Weighing and balancing the equities and the very important public interest factor involved, it is believed that the certificate issued should not become effective and that the application of plaintiff and intervenors for an interlocutory injunction should be granted; further this cause should be remanded to the defendant, Interstate Commerce Commission, to hear further evidence from the plaintiff and intervenors and for reconsideration of this entire cause and the wisdom of granting or denying a certificate of public convenience and necessity.