# Squaw Transit Company v. United States

> District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · October 24, 1975 · 402 F. Supp. 1278

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9624628

## Case

- **Full name:** The SQUAW TRANSIT COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, and Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
- **Decided:** October 24, 1975
- **Citations:** 402 F. Supp. 1278
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cook
- **Judges:** Holloway, Barrow, Cook
- **Cited by:** 8 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/9624628

## Opinion text

COOK, District Judge
(concurring).
I concur in full with the Opinion filed herein and its resultant holding.
In addition to the statements contained in said opinion, I would add an additional statement resulting from the actions of the Commission in accepting the application filed by the Squaw Transit Company.
The Commission received the application of Squaw and, though it was not in full compliance with pertinent CFR regulations, accepted the application as tendered and filed it together with the tendered filing fee. Thereafter the Commission forwarded various communications to Squaw which clearly led Squaw to believe the application was being processed. At a later date, the Commission, without notice, peremptorily dismissed the application stating as its reason that the application was not properly filed, in that Squaw failed to comply with 49 CFR 1065 by not attaching the required supporting documents to the application.
It is my opinion that having accepted the filing and having treated the application as properly before the Commission on its merits, it was incumbent upon the Commission to give reasonable notice to Squaw of its intended action to dismiss the application. Such notice would be required in order to comply with the minimal requirements of due process. See, Hess & Clark Division of Rhodia, Inc., v. Food & Drug Admn., 495 F.2d 975 (D.C.Cir.) (1974); Florida Citrus Commission v. United States, 144 F.Supp. 517 (N.D.Fla.1956) aff’d 352 U.S. 102 , 77 S.Ct. 589 , 1 L.Ed.2d 595 (1957); Jones Truck Lines Inc., v. United States, 146 F.Supp. 697 (W.D.Ark. 1956); Pinkett v. United States, 105 F. Supp. 67 (D.Md.1952).
The failure of the Commission to provide reasonable notice of its intended actions to dismiss and reasons for such dismissal and thereafter the failure to permit Squaw to comply with such requirements, in light of its previous actions, I believe, constitute arbitrary and capricious conduct by the Commission which would require that the Commission consider on its merits Squaw’s subsequent petition for reconsideration.
In all other matters, I concur in the Opinion filed herein.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9624628. Public record. Not legal advice.