U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1950

Arrow Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided June 5, 1950 · Clark, Bazelon, Fahy

182 F.2d 705; 87 U.S. App. D.C. 71; 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3884 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Dayton M. Harrington, Washington, D. C., for petitioners., Mr. James D. Graham, Jr., Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for petitioners., Mr. O. D. Ozment, Attorney, Civil Aeronautics Board, Washington, D. G, with ■whom Messrs. Emory T. Nunneley, Jr., General Counsel, Civil Aeronautics Board and John H. Wanner, Associate General Counsel, Civil Aeronautics Board, Washington, D. G, were on the brief, for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Investment Company Institute v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (D.C. Cir. 1977)
Deutsche Lufthansa Aktienge-Sellschaft v. Civil Aeronautics Board (D.C. Cir. 1973)
Division Of Production, American Petroleum Institute v. N. E. Halaby (5th Cir. 1962)
Division of Production, American Petroleum Institute v. Halaby (5th Cir. 1962)
Columbian Fuel Corporation v. Federal Power Commission (D.C. Cir. 1956)
Columbian Fuel Corp. v. Federal Power Commission (D.C. Cir. 1956)
Phillips Petroleum Company v. Federal Power Commission, Phillips Petroleum Company v. Federal Power Commission (10th Cir. 1955)
Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Civil Aeronautics Board (2d Cir. 1954)
Cadc 79-71 City Of Rochester v. Bond (D.C. Cir. 1979)
City of Rochester v. Bond (D.C. Cir. 1979)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks direct, review in this court of certain regulations of general applicability and prospective effect issued by the Civil Aeronautics Board. 1 The statute governing review of orders of the Civil Aeronautics Board 2 is not sufficiently different from that in the Natural Gas Act 3 to warrant our distinguishing this from United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 86 U.S.App.D.C. -, 181 F.2d 796. What we said there with regard to the conditions necessary for our review of administrative action, and the availability of other remedies, is also applicable here.

Dismissed.

. The pertinent regulations of the Civil Aeronautics Board are found in the Board's order dated November 4, 1949, which adopted Amendment No. 1 to Part 242, and Amendment No. 2 to Part 291, Economic Regulations, Civil Aeronautics Board, Regulations Serial No. ER-154 and ER-153. They deal generally with the relations between ticket agents and irregular air carriers. ER-154 prescribes the form of tiekets to be used by large irregular carriers, requires that agreements with ticket agents in regard to passenger traffic be reduced to writing, etc. It also> provides that the exemption heretofore given large irregular carriers will not be available to the extent that such carriers transport passengers obtained in disregard of such requirements. ER-153 requires the filing with the Board of all contracts entered into between carriers and ticket agents.

. 49 U.S.O.A. § 646.

. 15 U.S.C.A. § Wr(b).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.