Transit Comm'n v. United States, 289 U.S. 121 (1933)
U.S. Supreme Court, (April 10, 1933)
Docket number: 535
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/20017241
Id. vLex: VLEX-20017241
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
Search in this document
Document options
RSSU.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir. - Brotherhood of Railway Carmen, Et Al., Petitioners, v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Respondents, Csx Transportation, Inc., Intervenor. American Train Dispatchers' Association, Petitioner, v. Interstate Commerce Commission and the United States of America, Respondents, Norfolk & Western Railway Co. and Southern Railway Co., Intervenors., 880 F.2d 562 (D.C. Cir. 1989) Et Al., Petitioners, v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Respondents, Csx Transportation, Inc., Intervenor. American Train Dispatchers' Association, Petitioner, v. Interstate Commerce Commission and the United States of America, Respondents, Norfolk & Western Railway Co. and Southern Railway Co., Intervenors.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - City of Auburn, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington, Petitioner, v. the United States Government and the Surface Transportation Board, an Agency of the United States Government; King County, a Washington Municipal Corporation; Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Burlington Northern Railroad Company, a Delaware Corporation, Et Al., Respondents. City of Auburn, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington; City of Yakima, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington; City of Kent, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington, Petitioners, v. U.S. Government; the Surface Transportation Board, an Agency of the United States Government, Respondents, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Acquisition, Inc. ("Bnsf Acquisition") and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company ("Bn/Santa Fe"), Respondents-Intervenors. City of Auburn, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington, Petitioner, v. U.S. Go..., 154 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 1998) a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington, Petitioner, v. the United States Government and the Surface Transportation Board, an Agency of the United States Government; King County, a Washington Municipal Corporation; Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Burlington Northern Railroad Company, a Delaware Corporation, Et Al., Respondents. City of Auburn, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington; City of Yakima, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington; City of Kent, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington, Petitioners, v. U.S. Government; the Surface Transportation Board, an Agency of the United States Government, Respondents, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Acquisition, Inc. ("Bnsf Acquisition") and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company ("Bn/Santa Fe"), Respondents-Intervenors. City of Auburn, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington, Petitioner, v. U.S. Go...
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission, Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Respondents, Data Transmission Co. Et Al., Intervenors. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Petitioners, v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Respondents., 513 F.2d 1142 (9th Cir. 1975) Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Respondents, Data Transmission Co. Et Al., Intervenors. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Petitioners, v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Respondents.
U.S. Supreme Court TRANSIT COMMISSION v. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 121 (1933)
[Page 289 U.S. 121, 129] sion' of its own railroad. The use is a joint one but it is nevertheless 'operation.' And the phrase, 'engage in transportation ... by means of such additional or extended line of railroad' reasonably may be deemed to include a line owned by another carrier. The Long Island's use of the Pennsylvania lines covered by the agreement serves the same purpose as would the acquisition of such lines by purchase or the construction by it of a like extension into Manhattan. The provision as to abandonment is also significant, for, if the Long Island were to cease to use the lines covered by the agreement, it reasonably might be held to have abandoned a 'portion of a line of railroad.' Any interpretation excluding the lines of railroad in question would conflict with implications of our decisions. Alabama & V.R. Co. v. Jackson, etc., R. Co., supra, 271 U.S. 250, 46 S.Ct. 535; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 404, 409, 48 S.Ct. 189. The provisions of paragraph (18) undoubtedly apply to the operations under trackage agreements such as that under consideration. There is no merit in appellants' contention that, because the joint use commenced prior to the Transportation Act and has since been continuous, the provisions of paragraph (18) do not apply. The extended term of the contract approved by the state commission expired January 1, 1927. The agreement submitted to the Interstate Commerce Commission for approval was made long after such expiration and when there was no agreement for continuing joint operation or use of the lines and other facilities. On the taking effect of the Transportation Act the state commission was stripped of power to prescribe terms for such operation. The authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission is paramount and, in respect of the operation and agreement under consideration, it is necessarily exclusive. Affirmed.