# Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · November 7, 1974 · 522 F.2d 107

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7838330

## Case

- **Full name:** CONTINENTAL AIR LINES, INC. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, American Airlines, Inc., Intervenors CONTINENTAL AIR LINES, INC. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, American Airlines, Inc., Intervenors
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** November 7, 1974
- **Citations:** 522 F.2d 107; 173 U.S. App. D.C. 1
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wright
- **Judges:** Bazelon, Key, Leven, Leventhal, MacKinnon, McGowan, Reinstate, Respect, Robb, Robinson, Tamm, Thal, Therein, Wil, Wilkey, Wright
- **Cited by:** 51 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/7838330

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that “[t]he interest in postponing review is strong if the agency position whose validity is in issue is not in fact the agency’s final position,” and that “[i]f the position is likely to be abandoned or modified before it is actually put into effect, then its review wa…

## Opinion text

J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the court’s opinion in No. 73-1714.
As to No. 73-1718, the Civil Aeronautics Board has now made it clear that its seating configuration policy is final, and therefore judicially reviewable, by ruling in the Chicago-Los Angeles Fare Reductions Case that the policy “is not subject to review in this proceeding.” Order 74-10-27 at 3 (decided October 8, 1974). Under the circumstances I concur in the court’s opinion in No. 73-1718 that the seating configuration policy is ripe for review. However, in the Chicago-Los Angeles case the Board has stayed the effectiveness of its order and deferred action on an application for reconsideration apparently pending our decision in this case. I would instruct the panel to await the Board’s action on reconsideration before proceeding further. In this way the panel’s decision on the merits may be informed by the Board’s application of the policy to a concrete set of facts.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7838330. Public record. Not legal advice.