Motion to Affirm — Lester C. Newton Trucking Co. v. United States

BS : it ? eo ca Re | n

’ » we aoe . 5

sued OLS 129 sinha bs3i sh ¥ nk Asateare) olin’ t TonosteV.

¥ nan ge apie cbocriiits 88 qque.t :

LEY why wy A pyre sea hits BSE ; ee AMOK NPS

3 IN eS Rabat f ¥ ft

e = eee SR Soares Ree Beng, meee? RNS ae t o

‘ Neo eee snce age Pd denon, bokuw'd-er sho Vi .

. an *-« yr sy we, Bass Page )

: ht “WM ROE ye Qatar vv wo Hoganwr’t aii eo ;

§ wee anna nanan: ae plies .

Mersy ae ec 5s

eee n ne eee TONNES see BRO pee)

; fiscernatigh Bh *“OFTATIONS*. J wolestiv D goby toh.

Cases: “HEC OT SOL atiave Nosed oy, OY Sgnbtnd dois’ ~ :

\ Alton-R. ere United tikes, $19 OS. npsille CI0 gg

er sAccalbn - Wad, Fnb:y Dwdved Badter; BBS wae |

Sete IRI sie ot epee neetietintneinin ince anliaesietsbalemalinee nee as | 7,8

Battoylis'y. Ube Bika 3 OS! 198 9 = 4

- Ohesapeake-- Motor --Lines;--Ine--Cotarhor

ita? Appiiatie 8 ADDO. BT ATT

; z Refrigerated Traneportation, fe v United

a . "ae TS. 86 7A: “ee okay <K AN Vt WAL \ ae |

-1

¥

~-

~~

Outta Tile, ee Widited Sta, eon tet ‘Supp? ‘eoeeb

os firmed, 878 US.- 198. SSUsthw hae

' Eley’ ° Fad. ¥ Padted Sided: B85 imns.‘strs i

: == &’Bhaley Pramafer C5!" Pras* tenalor

: Milt Supplies, 70 MOC: 900, 6 . Wi a

: SS TEE tw!

: 185-\F: Supp "8 PO TRE S54. serfoerio Sa ul g

S Frosen-Food-Eaprese-v: United State) 3 Fi Bipp.

8,890; efizmed,-866- U8 - Gass AIS aoe gg

7 __ Helwering v. Gowran, Sod "G 8: sa PA arrist ¢ gue i0

-v{ Dasedid'S

7S Bed. sree “9.

ns atom a a

Tdiinee 6 ;

~

. tng 0o., Inc. 186 9d 400. Wis eeig - oa: eg.

¢ pubinie sini 29, 0G be a Oe’ oo Lea ae

Ue at Berta Sea :

y as Y oe : RD

STR ee

vs MES Se <=

’ Sabie | a ei “

af ners Stn

panes : ea hn ade sity es

wi’

25

4, tent >

A

g ae *

.

Qh BI io: al: aie sor :

pywnt, dueretact oad. f 8 oR eibroltol OB

Phe areyey AMT > LEO ANY : yo aus OER IG atiarit

ifhh Deot gadcetey ated tone Baia) Lagerlo Be, 685 srt

"Lawn. ison eae Conus, cael

+ tad

~~

BY to mytamotky fig HK rr Legge davilloage, PORE, eh

| Owes frais Ce Oe Blot. ae

© 0) oe es Qonaiommeate Codaasbiaron, (6) TOS goitone

ate 7 cat aah! pbs $3 i deogests Id Od 4 6. Ed TOS he fai}

OW’ appa ‘pi ‘tite vir rn baker bbee ‘ro

3 oe otto f betes 1 8 Apel !

”

i;

-*

Bier TS ilacchey 1 Bote

: wey tt fy

fica s

u t of m8 st r

f 4 AES, fit Eas te fers tt 8

a fics ede Oe

~

By SRR ‘.

= Rh 20, oitmabiemory anf mo “4

opias, Snood. ea ns)

ty te "2 i

ry « a.

of meter garter eciiaM,

. Mathes a

sh 7 * ; , vee oe ? % .

‘ \ Sek f

Soe en fe@tt. AAAS : ° ; ae

26); Ke ucking C , ;

“ 2B}ea . Rinwten Zrucbing 0. Common Carrier

Y EN te Oh te De q ° 7% ae ’ :

3% > y . “ = e

- MF P 7 of. ee ara ‘ +

S > ; , “ + . , : 5 *4 y. % ;

™ Se ~ > 5

ur

“ht wi

! W?vappalont opal for an extension of its

SomyeRAROP and necessity under

Section V7 (a) tithe, Interstate Commerce Act, (49

U.8.0. aio) to trataport the identical commodities

pe yi a determination that these three

; commodities were ineladadcin the; terms of its existing

mgr

So EAS eee

mantiete - eee iy

eK * igh oe onion

fa . sa : Me Lae 3 a yan (6) e a bs ;

oc cert |

ecornttse: ey; paiventn

foobir,

annus ene seomnacombrtteeberrn (WB. App.

60). ‘In jits subsequent ‘Mepor>on reconsideration, the

Coininission ‘vonchided that; ‘applying the’ stafidards «

established in Willis. Shaw;*-appellant Waw in? fast

entitled 'to: broader suamaeunamramedae

\ Bh Yes **

ooraplainit on . ak praanittati-

AMMO TER: RAUB, ce Ags heey a battish Bivt poiaeleraye’ y pe:

Bont MOTE phe’ enalidina% netiithatal . a ra

ne i at n>: fig, :

aie |

°

2

«

e 4

: phallic enibtalsic™ arin oempeds creat |

vot gyal’ eainveniones: and. oa PA as well as. their

1a tn Weipa tke Gloimalnaion's op

plication of those ‘standards in the instant case. . Ab

1: Determination of the operations: whieh a motor”

teatrier vany conduct. under a “grandfather” ‘clause, ,

‘grit <a that “Gf. Beetion..7(0) vf.the ‘Eramsportation

Act Of 4958,: 4s'a function reseryed:to the Commission.

United: States v. Carolina Carriers Corp., 315 U8.

. 415, 489-490. Tn its ‘report, on. reconsideration.(J.8.

App. 62 ¢¢seq.), the. Commission applied, the stand-

pide whieh this Court in Wile Shaw Frosen Express, ;

Ene, Unkted States; 311-,0.8; 159, “held ‘to’ obtain

jaw determnining | “grendfather”’.. rights to. transport

| + frowen:. traits, frozen: berries end frozen vegetables

boi ectisier pitch ty

» Elabe the neon: reveals that she Ocanasieniotte sonnet

cc a sat en

] %

bs 2517.8 2 r FAY

a ather’’ authority achieved substantial parity.

; _with appellant's ptior bona fide gperations. That grant —

i was plainly, in compliange with, Section.7(c) (seeJ.S.

“App. 99-99) .T0 tect asthe court below observed (8.

sacal seal od

piles gecebins ta na pire auet died:

attached greater weight td Wetthin vidi ie:

than it did-'to other eae nl ae ssh eel.

lant’s charge’ that'it’ “igiiOted al’ eWideiive existe iat.

_ of actual past -points: sated” (TST): It amy erent,

_ the weighing of evideties Befere thie Coiittisiih 16h

" & matter of coneérh forthe 6btitth; so’ longi

fial evidence supports the result retsidhed: United Stakes

-v. Carolina’ Oarriérs Corp., spray 386 TS, st: 489.905.

Alton BR. Oo. ¥. United States, 315 0.8. 15, heaiced

Commnission’s évaludtion of the ‘evidenté wuppe tit

grant (58. App. 48-50; 68-66), ‘carefully ret awed by.

the lower tourt @&S: AD. 88 ot seq), meet nét gai

be canvassed by this Court.’ oe “i

8h caalrsing tin Commision’ atone the ci kalo

“stated (I'S; App. 92) — Sk

Pin Comino sot ea vig an pr (oi,

-respect, to, shipments within’ the; Middle 5 apts

rather than an origin points, .

mission did not fail'to rach Ss i,m

detailed! in tle Yr er vega tsar rH

the Commission .

Parsi angel hiding rh lai wi anal :

only esters aia a senate a not} Fstop as bp. domity

interference with mi pesrr ay Bits, Sif aA

: sever fn ha net A?

Seiten tee 2 oom a a

a

git wltia.®

| spe i

App. ape

PRES Se yietes “renee

Dm ae 2 9siG) 3.6, aeeeers a f

oD eo Resear yy sleet Sy Hyol A ssevos Tien bonistane mae

OAD Cal SL4) 088 .gqua .@ sar weitere, hatin wv

‘

Le

piss et sic, ingredient. in the, determination

Pieris Tec Aina and. necessity. .ig whether \the

ing facilities are adequate to meet the present or

fntuze, transportation. requirements,” See Curtis, Ino.

- Ve ¥« United, States, 225 B,, Supp: 894, 898 €D. Colo.), :

“Maple 378, U.S... 128; Quickie Transport, ..Co... ¥.

__ United. States, ag F, Supp,.:826,: 829 (D,;. Minn.),

rmec SMa oe ee ee Ene,. a

a’ Siates, 88 ¥. ‘Supp. 153 (8.D..N-Y,),-afixmed,

"386 on. Here appellant failedto carry its ad-

s pwr ‘et operations ‘per- |

"raed ides ote 0 Tike a, factor, to, bet

: te soa an: determining: the: ‘public. eonvenience

C y Gg ) App 6788). Such evidenss'is: of

we (Olam mites § ore flier 4r the hott?

‘ ‘Soy %, i Race e) 3" °

4 $54 Z . $s ; a i y - ) ;

re Mee

at sees

: g Tipsreried yotynas Floyd & Beailey Transfer Co.

* United States, 185 F. Supp. 390 (N.D. Ala:). The

- §

improperly exercised heires fase. Sita fois me ii : :

+ M2 - he ' —

(Seryice. . ‘Bribnafer Coss shila ae yrue dt,

178) ‘and: that site: cotistruction! will. hat-be overturned -

drew Ge Néleon,: Erie: United ‘States; $56:C.Si554;

Noble; ‘United. States,: 349; 0:8: BES 98 5: National

Prailer Convoy, Ind.:¥.: United States; '240F.

286, 288 (ND. Okla.), affirmed, 382-08. :40;: Wid.

Dillner Lransfer Co: Interstate: Commerce Commis.

ston; 193 F. Supp: 828; 825-826: (WD. Pa),jaffitmed,

368.0.8,.63 Union Cartage Covi United: States,.198 F.

Sipp. 645; 646-647, (D ‘Mass:), affirmed, 368 U:8. 148.

abana ceertificatel i esstitle it dea tesappcasl ino

ZOD): sen feuite‘hertioe, srid: egetablests a ee

prttynte aint cof the1958 Pada: 578),4

eating? cltiuse whieh preserves pre-existing authority, -

ani ‘Section 222(ai) of the Intetstate Commette Act

(49 DSC: 1B12(&)),. ‘Which provides’ that certificates

remain in éffect until suspended, changed or revoked

after: nioti¢e arid: hearing. But this contention disre-

gad! the> fact} as-found by the Commission | (J.8.

fe pW 21-28; 68), that it ‘never intended * to authorize

cates were iisned.Tndeed, in’ Newton, Hatension of

Prosen Poods, 43 M.C.C. 787 (1944), ap-

‘Was’¢ranted *‘frogen’ food’? authority upon the

y that thé transportation’ of the three -

modities was nt authorized: by its exist-

~ieoimmodities” Luektificalen. “Having

i : sin 9 Tots oe)

Stk, Baste bse amet ota.

¥, Batted OE poy ¥. Suse , 386 (NAD. A! 7

9

: Unsted| States; uiprea, 955 TB» at 580-560 Phat

; ia simply not ithe casd Kure.» : PATS sf vi seal: TOUT ek

"7a Seecidn BBB) (6) of thé chips “

(49: Stat.’ 544-345), non-mancfactuted agritalteral-commoditis

ett aisha cha eee oeiean oe atl

we iain Interstate Cor 6 Con ¥. Da

2d 116 (C.A. 5}} ents Caines Comat y Blepotes

Trucking Co., Inc. 186, F. 24.400. ymimission

‘consistently held, however,’ thot 1084 eal

berties, and’ ‘végetablés’ were hot” h the ‘agricdltd:

modities exception, because-it eigen only + n bi :

items. To transport frozen fruits, berries, and ‘vege

Frac drgagptin dng sone Arma oe ) & carrier quires

to have a certificate ny thelng tek Sedna 4 3

however, two court de d that these vomimodities ‘were

within the Section 203(b) 5) (6) ‘exemption. Home Transfer & -

\ Storage Oo. v. United States, 141 ¥. Supp, 599° (W-D. Wash),

“~~ afined, 8590.9. 884; Prosen Food Fapress ¥. United States,

148 FB Supp. 399 (SD. ‘Tex.), affitined; $85 US. 6: sa meet

of the Transportation Act of 1988 '('72 Stat. 874), ‘Co

clatified ‘its intetition ‘with ‘respect to ‘the Regen Say

cultural commodities exception. Section 7(a) amenie

* 208(b) (8) ‘by adopting a revious Comihis

and fhon-exempt ties arid by.

the exemption frozen fruiti, berries, anil Veg bles. | ess thus

affirmed and upheld the Commissint’s fon panting terpret

-. . tidnt:' See "HL Rep. No, 1929, Sawa 24: Sess., pp. 15-17. to

| night sed to fh fo ot Ui

wes IOT

Nothing the 188 Actor it agli hoy res oni :

~~,

“

| wo

"tail addition i the, eotitt dhetew obacrved,’ appellant

_ “ln predaded by the language snd lngistativetistony of

Bectlah 20b),.of the 1988 Act thom relying. on that pro-

Saas : mere wf eenaneenatoaen

‘ t® ° . . : ‘ Se

Tei ns} CO tate

’ et >

” : y »"

‘sy : t :

;

se i ve

sofamodites

SP SE bse pone oe shel

>

> +3

Oe Seat

~

dd quiselaigsl wi 10 Jok BOCK old ni yashor

ee a a ee

ee ae

The judgment of ‘the district court. so ‘be Me

ae BE r Mai Sg

| Solicitor General, -

‘Dowarw F. Turner,

Assistant Attorney General.

: Howam E. Suarmd, 2 §

Wuium R. Weissman, eet

Rosert W. GINNANE, ” ae

General Counsel, -

Joun E. Favtx, -

_ Attorney, ;

Interstate Commerce Commission.

Avevst 1967.

a

5.0 Sovermmrer Peering Gere, 1907