U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1958

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided March 17, 1958 · Prettyman, Miller, Burger

254 F.2d 90 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Charles Pickett, 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. George A. Spater, New York City, was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. William Caverly, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for petitioner., Mr. Robert L. Park, Atty., Civil Aeronautics Bd., with whom Mr. Franklin M. Stone, Gen. Counsel, Civil Aeronautics Bd., Messrs. John H. Wanner and O. D. Ozment, Associate Gen. Counsel, Civil Aeronautics Bd., and Mr. Daniel M. Friedman, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for respondent. Mr. Charles H. Weston, Atty., Dept. of Justice, also entered an appearance for respondent in No. 12582.

Cases that cite this one

22 later published cases cite this decision. The 19 that cite it most often are listed here.

Jaki Walker v. City of Berkeley (9th Cir. 1991)
American General Insurance Co. And Fidelity & Deposit Co. Of Maryland v. Federal Trade Commission (9th Cir. 1979)
Julian C. Taylor v. New York City Transit Authority and Civil Service Commission of the City of New York (2d Cir. 1970)
Thomas horne/kathleen Winn v. Sheila Polk (Ariz. 2017)
Butler v. DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS (La. 1992)
Kiger v. Albon (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)
Anderson v. Industrial Com'n of Utah (Utah 1985)
Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General v. Consumer Publishing Co. (Md. 1985)
Guthrie v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (Wis. 1983)
12319 Corp. v. Business License Commission (Cal. Ct. App. 1982)
Boughan v. Board of Engineering Examiners (Or. Ct. App. 1980)
Lead Industries Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency (D.C. Cir. 1980)
Union Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission (Mo. Ct. App. 1979)
Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (D.C. Cir. 1979)
In re Robson (Alaska 1978)
Forest Hills Utility Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (Ohio 1974)
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board (D.C. Cir. 1967)
American Cyanamid Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (6th Cir. 1966)
Securities and Exchange Commission, William L. Cary v. R. A. Holman & Company, Inc. (D.C. Cir. 1963)

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

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge.

This is a mail pay case. Under a statute Trans World Airlines, Inc., was entitled to compensation for transporting mail, the amount to be fixed by the Civil Aeronautics Board under statutory standards and directions. The Postmaster General was a party to the proceeding, protagonist of the Government’s interest as responsible for the carrying of the mail. A real dispute developed upon a number of items. Principal among these was the treatment of the federal income tax resultant from an emergency facility amortization deduction under Section 124 of the then Internal Revenue Code. 1 2*The then Solicitor of the Post Office Department signed the brief to the Board in behalf of the Postmaster General on various offset issues. 2 This attorney then became a member of the Civil Aeronautics Board, and when the amortization deduction point came on for decision in the Trans World Airlines case he cast the deciding vote in a three-to-two decision in favor of the Postmaster General. He also cast the vote which effectuated a deadlock on Trans World Airlines’ motion for reconsideration, thus causing a denial of the motion. The carrier twice moved for the disqualification of this member.

It is plain that in this statute Congress contemplated an adjudicatory proceeding and conferred upon the Board in this respect quasi-judicial functions. The fundamental requirements of fairness in the performance of such functions require at least that one who participates in a case on behalf of any party, whether actively or merely formally by being on pleadings or briefs, take no part in the decision of that case by any tribunal on which he may thereafter sit. The order is vacated and the case remanded to the Board for reconsideration.

. Now 26 U.S.C.A. § 168.

. The Board argues that the amortization deduction point was not briefed in the brief signed by this Solicitor but was noted and argued as an issue after he left that position. We think this fact is immaterial.

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