# Carnation Company, a Corporation v. Pacific Westbound Conference, Far East Conference and the Federal Maritime Commission

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · September 28, 1964 · 336 F.2d 650

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9450276

## Case

- **Full name:** CARNATION COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. PACIFIC WESTBOUND CONFERENCE, Far East Conference and the Federal Maritime Commission, Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 28, 1964
- **Citations:** 336 F.2d 650
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Chambers, Pope, Jertberg
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed by Carnation Co. v. Pacific Westbound Conference, 383 U.S. 213 (1966).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9450276

## Opinion text

UPON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing discloses a failure to note the main thrust of the opinion which holds that appel *668 lant’s action in the court below was properly dismissed on the ground that the matters complained of were within the primary jurisdiction of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Appellant has failed to note that we said: (immediately following the reference to footnote 16 on page 659) “In the exercise of its ‘regulatory and remedial powers’ to enforce the Act’s ‘pervasive regulatory scheme’, it is for the Commission to pass upon the following questions: whether the defendants did or did not make certain agreements, whether those agreements, if made were such as to require Commission approval * * Again we discuss this matter at great length (beginning at the middle of page 664, where we said among other things: “Cunard and Far East Conference, as we have noted, both hold that failure of approval does not affect the Commission’s primary jurisdiction. But even if it did, the question would remain as to whether what defendants did amounted to agreements which required Commission approval. And that is something for the Commission to decide. If it should decide that defendants have been acting under agreements which should have been filed, but were not, the Commission under Sec. 22 of the Act, could adjudge a violation of the Act, as in Trans-Pacific Frgt. Conf. of Japan v. Federal Maritime Com’n, 9 Cir., 314 F.2d 928 . And, of course, the Commission, as we shall note hereafter, might find the conduct of the defendants in respect to the rates mentioned in the complaint was wholly within and authorized by the filed and approved agreements. But in passing upon these matters the Commission must necessarily employ a specialized judgment and a determination of fact, policy and law, not within the conventional experience of a judge or jury.” The point there made was discussed, both before and after the quoted language, at considerable length.
In short, we believe that the petition for rehearing is predicated upon a misunderstanding of our opinion. The petition is denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9450276. Public record. Not legal advice.