"a final order need not necessarily be the very last order in an agency proceeding," so long as it meets the conditions of finality
How later courts described this case
- "a final order need not necessarily be the very last order in an agency proceeding," so long as it meets the conditions of finality
- action of the Board in issuing order allowing dual rate system agreement to go into effect prior to Board approval held contrary to specific requirements of Section 15 of the Shipping Act
- action of the Board in issuing order allowing dual rate system agreement to go into effect prior to Board approval field contrary to specific requirements of Section 15 of the Shipping Act
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FAHY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting on juris dictional grounds).
The jurisdiction of this court extends to review of final orders, only, of the Federal Maritime Board. 64 Stat. 1129 , 5 U.S.C.A. § 1032 . I do not think the order of January 21, 1953, is a final one. It (a) denies an application of Isbrandtsen and the Department of Justice requesting the Board to suspend a rate system which the conference was *58 to place in effect, and (b) sets a hearing on protests against the rates. Notwithstanding its recitals I do not construe this order as approving the. rates or as otherwise final.
Assuming that putting the rates into effect by the conference would be unlawful without Board approval and that Is-brandtsen would be injured thereby, equitable relief against the conference and those members of the industry which compose it seems properly to be sought in a District Court. The impact of such rate action by the industry should not in legal contemplation be attributable to this order of the Board so as to make it final for our review. And it seems to me also that we should not construe the limited statutory authority of this court to include the power to enjoin the conference because the Board has refused to issue an order suspending the rates.