# New England Air Express, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · February 21, 1952 · 194 F.2d 894

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/228888

## Case

- **Full name:** NEW ENGLAND AIR EXPRESS, Inc. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** February 21, 1952
- **Citations:** 194 F.2d 894; 90 U.S. App. D.C. 215; 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 4052
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Bazelon, Edgerton, Fahy, Per Curiam
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/228888

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM.
. Petitioner, a large irregular air carrier, asks review of an order of the Civil Aeronautics Board suspending the Letter of Registration which permits it to operate. Civil Aeronautics Act, as amended, 52 Stat. 1024 , § 1006, 49 U.S.C.A. § 646 . Petitioner has no certificate of public convenience and necessity. In the hearing which led to the suspension order gross violations of the Act and of the Board’s Economic Regulations by .petitioner were charged, admitted, and found. The Board allowed petitioner to file affidavits, documentary evidence, and written argument, and also to “present orally its reasons why its registration should not be suspended * * *." Standard Airlines, Inc., v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 29, 32 , 177 F.2d 18, 21 .
Petitioner did not ask the Board for an evidentiary hearing. It now contends it should have had such a hearing. But the public interest appears to have justified petitioner’s suspension and at least some of petitioner’s violations were willful. For both of these reasons the suspension hearing was not subject to the requirements of § 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1008 (b). Moreover petitioner’s objection to the Board’s hearing was not presented to the
*895
Board and therefore comes*too late. Seaboard & Western Airlines, Inc., v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 78 , 183 F.2d 975 .
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/228888. Public record. Not legal advice.