US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for


Subscribe to Cases that cite 327 U. S. 515 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines, Inc., 327 U.S. 515 (1946)

United States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines, Inc.

No. 74

Argued January 28, 1946

Decided March 11, 1946

327 U.S. 515


1. Each of two motor carriers made application to the Interstate Commerce Commission under Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act for a permit to operate between points A and C. One was then operating between A and B; the other between B and C, and they operated joint service between A and C by freight interchange. Each applicant opposed the other's application, and competing carriers opposed both. The applications were heard separately by different joint boards, but were dealt with by the Commission in a single report.

Held: that an order of the Commission granting both applications was valid. Pp. 327 U. S. 517, 327 U. S. 523.

2. Neither the fact that the Commission dealt with both applications in one report nor the fact that the Commission granted both applications invalidated its order. P. 327 U. S. 523. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 327 U. S. 516

3. The Commission's disposition of the applications did not inject into the proceedings as a "new issue" the question whether both applications should be granted. P. 327 U. S. 526.

4. That the Commission did not determine each case exclusively on the record therein, but considered the evidence in both proceedings, does not warrant invalidating its order in the absence of ay showing of specific prejudice. P. 327 U. S. 528.

5. Where the Commission's report contains all the required findings, it is not obliged to annotate to each finding the evidence supporting it. P. 327 U. S. 529.

6. The fact that an administrative agency has considered matters dehors the record does not invalidate its action unless substantial prejudice is shown. P. 327 U. S. 530.

7. The order of the Commission granting both applications was supported by the findings and the evidence. P. 327 U. S. 530.

8. The Commission's ultimate finding as to the fitness and ability of one of the applicants in this case was supported by a sufficient basic finding and by evidence. P. 327 U. S. 533.

9. Rehearings before administrative bodies are within their own discretion, and only the clearest abuse, not shown upon the record in this case, will sustain an exception to the rule. Atchison, T. & S.F. R. Co. v. United States, 284 U. S. 248, distinguished. P. 327 U. S. 534.

10. The Interstate Commerce Commission, and not the reviewing court, is the arbiter of the paramount public interest. The judicial function is limited to ascertaining whether the order has support in the law and in the record. P. 327 U. S. 535.

57 F.Supp. 192, reversed.

Appeal from a decree of a district court of three judges which suspended an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission and remanded the cause to the Commission for a rehearing. 57 F.Supp. 192. Reversed, p. 327 U. S. 536. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 327 U. S. 517

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™