U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1962

British Overseas Airways Corp. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided June 14, 1962 · Bastían, Danaher, Wright

304 F.2d 952 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

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.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision. The 2 that cite it most often are listed here.

Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines (D.C. Cir. 1984)
Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Boyd (District Court, District of Columbia 1962)

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 of the Court

WRIGHT, Circuit Judge.

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 *953carrier[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. 668, 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.

Petitions dismissed.

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