United States v. Florida East Coast Ry.
By: LN on May 02, 2012 09:49:53 AM

Citation:  410 U.S. 224, 93 S.Ct. 810, 35 L.Ed.2d 223.

Summary:  Respondents were the rail road companies who filed suit against the commission's order. Respondents claimed that petitioner had violated the Act. Petitioner claimed that respondents were given proper hearing and they did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act.

Facts:  Respondents filed suit in district court for setting aside the incentive per diem rates which was ordered by the Petitioner. Respondents challenged the order of the commission on both substantive and procedural grounds. The district court held that petitioner had violated the Administrative Procedure Act by receiving the submissions in written form only. Petitioner sought review of the district court's decision.

Issue:  Whether the district court was correct in holding that the commission was required to act according to the administrative law and commission's determination for receiving submissions from the appellees only in written form violated the law?

Holding:  No, the district court was not correct in its holding that the commission was required to act according to the administrative law and commission's determination for receiving submissions from the appellees only in written form violated the law.

Procedure:  Judgment of the commission was reversed by the District Court. Judgment of the district court was reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Rule:  The Administrative Procedure Act states that none of its provisions limit or repeal additional requirements which are imposed by statute or otherwise recognized by law. (5 U.S.C. § 559).

Rationale:  The incentive payments which were proposed by the board were applicable across all the common carriers by rail road. There was no effort made to single out any particular rail road. The order did not change the factual generalized nature. The commission relied on factual inferences as basis for its order. The factual inferences were used for formulating a basically legislative type judgment for prospective application rather than adjudicating disputed facts. Hence the commission's order satisfied both the provisions of Interstate Commerce Act and Administrative Act.

Dissent:  Two judges while dissenting opined that the commission had not afforded a proper hearing while fixing the fee to the petitioners.

 

View Comments


Leave Comment
After logging in, you can add comments
Michael Mordechai YadegariReviewsout of 83 reviews