invalidating rate structure held to be within primary jurisdiction of Board in Far East Conference, 342 U.S. 570, 72 S.Ct. 492, 96 L.Ed. 576, and United States Navigation Co. v. Cunard Steamship Co., 284 U.S. 474, 52 S.Ct. 247, 76 L.Ed. 408 (1932)
How later courts described this case
- invalidating rate structure held to be within primary jurisdiction of Board in Far East Conference, 342 U.S. 570, 72 S.Ct. 492, 96 L.Ed. 576, and United States Navigation Co. v. Cunard Steamship Co., 284 U.S. 474, 52 S.Ct. 247, 76 L.Ed. 408 (1932)
- dispute between shipper, joined by the United States, against Federal Maritime Board over shipping rates approved by the Maritime Board
- Department of Justice and Secretary of Agriculture, as commercial shipper, joined private shipper in obtaining statutory judicial review of Maritime Board rates
- group boycott and ICC regulation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Harlan,
dissenting.
Except in one respect, I agree with the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter. I do not think that this Court’s decisions in United States Navigation Co. v. Cunard Steamship Co., 284 U. S. 474 , and Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U. S. 570 , have the effect which that opinion attributes to them. Despite the logic of the argument flowing from the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, and the lack of any substantial factual distinction between the agreements in those cases and in this one, I am unable to read Cunará and Far East Conference as having determined, without any discussion, the far-reaching question which has been decided today. See especially Cunard, 284 U. S., at 483-484, 487 . On the merits, however, I dissent for the reasons set forth in Mr. Justice Frankfurter’s opinion.