TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

British Overseas Airways Corporation, British West Indian Airways, Limited, and Bahamas Airways, Limited v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd.

British Overseas Airways Corporation, British West Indian Airways, Limited, and Bahamas Airways, Limited v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., Intervenors. Scandinavian Airlines System v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., Intervenors. Societe Anonyme Belge D'Exploitation De La Navigation Aerienne (Sabena) v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., Intervenors. Klm Royal Dutch Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., Intervenors

British Overseas Airways Corp., British West Indian Airways, Ltd., & Bahamas Airways v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 304 F.2d 952 (D.C. Cir. 1962)
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 14, 1962
Docket
No. 16652_1
Citations
304 F.2d 952113 U.S. App. D.C. 761962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4819

Opinion

304 F.2d 952

BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION, British West Indian Airways, Limited, and Bahamas Airways, Limited, Petitioners, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent, Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., et al., Intervenors. SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent, Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., et al., Intervenors. SOCIETE ANONYME BELGE D'EXPLOITATION DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE (SABENA), Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent, Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., et al., Intervenors. KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES, Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent, Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., et al., Intervenors.

No. 16640.

No. 16643.

No. 16644.

No. 16652.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued May 16, 1962.

Decided June 14, 1962.

Mr. George N. Tompkins, Jr., New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Abbot P. Mills, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioners in No. 16,640.

Mr. Hamilton O. Hale, New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Robert T. A. Molloy, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioner in No. 16,643.

Mr. Samuel E. Gates, New York City, for petitioner in No. 16,652.

Mr. O. D. Ozment, Associate Gen. Counsel, Litigation and Research, Civil Aeronautics Bd., with whom Messrs. John H. Wanner, Gen. Counsel, Joseph B. Goldman, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Arthur R. Schor, William F. Becker, Attys., Civil Aeronautics Bd., and Richard A. Solomon, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for respondent.

Messrs. Ronald H. Cohen, New York City, and Albert F. Grisard, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for petitioner in No. 16,644.

Messrs. William C. Burt and Robert M. Beckman, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for intervenors.

Mr. Grant W. Wiprud, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for petitioner in No. 16,643.

Before DANAHER, BASTIAN and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

WRIGHT, Circuit Judge.

1

Section 1006(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1486 (a), here relied on, does not authorize review by this court, now or later, of the proposed regulation in suit, since it is "[an] order in respect of * * * foreign air carrier[s] subject to the approval of the President" under Section 801 of the Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1461 . See Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103 , 68 S.Ct. 431 , 92 L. Ed. 568 , interpreting the identical provision of the Civil Aeronautics Act, § 1006(a), formerly 49 U.S.C.A. § 646 . The prohibition cannot be circumvented by the expedient attempted here. This is not to say that there may not be a judicial remedy against administrative, or even Presidential, action beyond the scope of lawful authority, as defined by the Aviation Act. The petitions will accordingly be dismissed, without prejudice to independent proceedings in the District Court challenging the validity of the proposed regulation if and when promulgated.

2

Petitions dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1963: 21964: 11965: 31968: 21972: 11973: 21975: 11977: 11978: 219632026peak 1965 · 3

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103 (1948) 756
British Overseas Airways Corp. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 304 F.2d 952 (D.C. Cir. 1962) 4

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