TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Seaboard & Western Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

Seaboard & Western Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 183 F.2d 975 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 5, 1950
Docket
No. 10089_1
Judges
Stephens, Edgerton, Prettyman
Citations
183 F.2d 97587 U.S. App. D.C. 781950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3887

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Seaboard & Western Airlines, Inc., the petitioner, is authorized to engage as an irregular air carrier in interstate or overseas transportation of persons and property or foreign transportation of property. Petitioner requested and respondent Civil Aeronautics Board denied a temporary exemption authorizing petitioner to engage in transportation of property between the United States, Europe, and the Middle East on a “demand basis”, without regard to regularity of service. A proceeding, in which a hearing has since been held, on petitioner’s application to the Commission for a certificate authorizing such transportation on a permanent basis was pending during the exemption proceeding and apparently is still pending.

The present petition asks review of the Board’s order denying a temporary exemption. The point to which petitioner’s brief and argument are directed is that the Board failed to make adequate findings. Petitioner did not urge this objection before the Board, despite the fact that petitioner asked the Board for a rehearing on other grounds. The objection therefore comes too late. The statute provides that “No objection to an order of the Board shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the Board or, if it was not so urged, unless there were reasonable grounds for failure to do so.” 52 Stat. 1024 , 49 U.S.C.A. § 646 (e). No such grounds are shown. It follows that we could not modify or set aside the Board’s order even if we regarded the objection now urged as valid.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1952: 11957: 11966: 11971: 11979: 119522026peak 1952 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list