# Appendix — United Air Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385610_0509%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1952 - **Citation:** 342 U.S. 908 ## Text a ees Say APPENDIX A. Petition for Writ of Review Denied in re S. F. No. 18426, United Air Lines, Inc., petitioner, y, Public Utili- ties Commission of the State of California, respondent. August 2, 1951. CALIFORNIA SUPREME Court OE Ae PO Bey i E s 8 “4 A $ i ier eo APPENDIX B. Decision No. 45624. Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. Investigation into the fares, rules, regulations, charges, services, operations and practices of Arrow Airways, Inc.: California Central Airlines; Kenneth G. Fried- kin, doing business as Pacific Southwest Airlines; Robin Airways, Inc.; Southwest Airways Company; Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc.; United Air Lines, Inc.; and Western Air Lines, Inc. Case No. 5271. APPEARANCES Ray E. Costello, for Southwest Airways Company, respondent, Donald Keith Hall and D. P. Renda, for Western Air Lines, Inc., respondent, Kenneth G. Friedkin, for Pacific Southwest Airlines, respondent, John W. Preston, Jr., for California Central Airlines, respondent, Charles Stearns, for United Air Lines, Inc., respon- dent. David G. Shearer, for Trans World Airlines, Inc., respondent, Norman D. Kessler, for Robin Airways, Inc., respon- dent, Wilson E. Cline, C. H. Jacobsen and Thomas A. Hop- kins, for the staff of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. niin OPINION This proceeding is an investigation upon the Commis- sion’s own motion into the reasonableness, and propriety of the fares. rules, services, operations and practices of for the transport lawfulness regulations, charges, "respondent air lines ation of passengers between the San Francisco Bay area and the Los Angeles area. Public hearings were held before Commissioner Crae- mer and Examiner Bryant at Los Angeles on March 14 and 27, 1951. Briefs have been filed. The matter is ready for decision. This investigation was instituted by the Commission upon receipt of information that fares were being assessed for so-called “coach” transportation in excess of those named for such service in the tariffs on file with the Com- mission. The eight air carriers maintaining published fares between the San Francisco and L os Angeles areas were made respondents, Factual evidence was offered by representatives of various of the carriers and by members of the Commis- sion’s staff. The record shows that certain of the re- spondents are not offering the coach services with which this investigation is primarily concerned. Arrow Air- ways, Inc., is no longer operating common carrier ser- vice of any nature, and has requested that the tariff which it heretofore filed for California operations be can- celled." Similarly, a member of the Commission’s staff testified that the operations of Robin Airways have been suspended or discontinued. Southwest Airways Com- pany and Trans World Airlines, Inc., ( formerly Trans- ‘Exhibit No. 6. Ee | ARLE ME TTI F eee ee oe ee ad canis continental & Western Air, Inc.) have no coach opera- tions between California points, and there is no evidence in this proceeding that either of these companies has made any unauthorized increase in fares or otherwise operated unlawfully or improperly. Kenneth G. Friedkin, doing business as Pacific Southwest Airlines, operates a coach service between the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas. The record shows that his fare for this service was main- tained at $9.95 until March 28, 1951, on which date he increased it to $11.70, under authorization from this Commission.2. The evidence is clear that Friedkin prop- erly continued to assess and collect the lower fare until his tariff was lawfully amended. As to these three car- riers the investigation may be discontinued upon cancella- tion of the inoperative tariffs. The remaining respondents are California Central Air- lines, United Air Lines, Inc. and Western Air Lines, Inc. As to these three carriers the essential facts are similar and undisputed. Each of them operates coach flights be- tween the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas. For some time prior to March 1, 1951, California Central Airlines maintained for this service a one-way fare of $9.99 and the other two companies maintained a fare of $9.95. Effective with that date each of the companies started to collect and thereafter continued to collect a fare of $11.70. Each of the companies had filed with the Commission, prior to March 1, an application seeking authority to make the fare increase. None of the applica- tions had been granted prior to March 1, nor have they yet been granted.® 2Authority No. 20-12-121 of March 20, 1951. 8It was these circumstances which impelled the institution of this proceeding. At the conclusion of the taking of evidence the Com- mission’s staff moved that the Commission promptly issue a preliminary order requiring the three respondents (1) to cease and desist charging passenger fares for air line coach travel in excess of the authorized fares set forth in their tariffs on file with the Commission, (2) to Prepare and maintain a record of the names and addresses of all persons from whom more than the authorized fares have been or may be collected subsequent to F 1951, and (3) to make reparation of the exces authorized fares over the authorized fares to gers whose n tainable. ebruary 28, s of the un- all passen- ames and addresses are reasonably ascer- Replies to the motion were, by agreement, corporated in the briefs filed by the three respondents. At the hearing and in their briefs the three carriers urged various extenuating circumstances. challenged the Commission’s power to regulate in any re- spect the activities and business of air transportation com- panies. They contended, and offered evidence to establish, that the fare increase was made in response to a request by the chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board, which request the companies construed to be tantamount to a demand. They asserted that in any event the $11.70 fare is fully justified, and, without waiving their objection that the Commission lacks jurisdiction, introduced fin- ancial and other evidence designed to support the asser- tion. in- Primarily they The jurisdictional question may be considered first. The respondents argue on various grounds that the pro- visions of Article XII of the California Constitution are not applicable to air carriers, that the constitutional sec- tions are not self-executing, and that the California legis- “4 SPEEA RNS ila bia . PGI REOPEN, HR PTS tiie) —_ UREA ee SiR CST RAE ANT IRF IE SPOS at poe ee lature has not made a specific grant of power to the Com- mission to regulate air carriers. United Air Lines, Inc., and Western Air Lines, Inc., assert further that the regu- lation of air commerce is a field which has been completely occupied by the Federal government under the Civil Aero- nautics Act of 1938. United Air Lines, Inc., advance the additional argument that its operations in question are interstate in nature. Article XII of the California Constitution contains many provisions which are pertinent to the jurisdictional question. Section 17 of said Article provides that, “All railroad, canal, and other transportation companies are declared to be common carriers, . . .” Section 23 of said Article, in part, states “every common carrier, is hereby declared to be a public utility . . .” The staff on cross-examination of witnesses for the airlines developed the fact and we now find that the three air carriers, California Central Airlines, United Air Lines, Inc., and Western Air Lines, Inc., which have in- creased their coach fares without Commission authoriza- tion offer their services to the public in general. Counsel for United Air Lines, Inc., in their brief admit that United is a common carrier. In the recent case of State ex rel. State Railway Com- mission v. Ramsey (1949), 151 Nebr. 333, 27 N. W. (2d) 502, the Supreme Court of Nebraska in considering whether air carriers are common carriers as that term is used in the Nebraska Constitution laid down the follow- ing principles: ; A Constitution is intended to meet and be applied to any conditions and circumstances as they arise in the course of the progress of the community. wales The terms and provisions of constitutions are con- stantly expanded and enlarged by construction to meet the advancing affairs of men. While the powers granted thereby do not change, they do apply to all things to which they are in their nature applicable . . . These principles have been held to be applicable to transportation by air. Common carriers by air are indistinguishable from other common car- riers with respect to the policy of the law, Any per- son or organization engaged in transportation by air for hire is a common carrier.” (p. 338 Nebr. Reports ) The California Supreme Court had under consideration in Western Association of Short Line Railroads v. Rail- road Commission (1916), 173 Cal. 802, 162 Pac. 391, the question whether companies engaged in the businesses of transporting freight in raotor trucks and Passengers in automobile stages were “other transporta- tion companies” referred to in Article XII of the Cali- fornia Constitution. The Court unequivocally held that they were public transportation companies, common car- riers, and public utilities. then new In light of the foregoing cited constitutional provisions and judicial decisions, we find and hold that the herein air carriers operating under coach fares between the Los Angeles area and the San Francisco Bay area are trans- portation companies, common carriers and public utilities. We now turn to the question whether the Public Util- ities Commission has jurisdiction over the air carriers with respect to increases in fares charged for transporta- tion between points within the State of California. FMEA) Peg ie OO a CEM ALGAE OLED BOD IDIE TRG OLE TEEN delle Section 20 of Article XII of the California Constitu- tion, in part, provides: “No railroad or other transportation company shall raise any rate of charge for the transportation of freight or passengers or any charge connected there- with or incidental thereto, under any circumstances whatsoever, except upon a showing before the rail- road commission provided for in this Constitution, that such increase is justified. “ Section 22 of Article XII of the California Constitu- tion, in part, provides: “Said Commission shall have the power to estab- lish rates of charges for the transportation of passen- gers and freight by railroads and other transpor- tation companies, and no railroad or other transpor- tation company shall charge or demand or collect or receive a greater or less or different compensation for such transportation of passengers or freight, or for any service in connection therewith, between the points named in any tariff of rates, established by said Commission than the rates, fares and charges which are specified in such tariff. . . .” In the Short Line Railroads case, supra, the Supreme Court ordered that a peremptory writ of mandate issue requiring the Commission to assume the jurisdiction con- ferred by the above-quoted portion of Section 22. With reference to the absence of enabling legislation, the Court stated at page 804: “Tt is not and will not be questioned but that if the constitution has vested such power, it is not within the legislative power, either by its silence or by direct enactment, to modify, curtail, or abridge this constitutional grant.” That decision is a clear statement that the provisions of said Section 22 of the constitution are self-executing, and that the Commission must exercise the authority therein conferred regardless of any absence of legislative enact- ments. While the Court did not refer to Section 20, there is no reason why the same construction would not be given that section, Various of the respondents have referred to In re . Martinez (1943), 22 Cal. (2d) 259, 138 P. (24) 10, as | being contrary to the Principles above set forth. It is true that the Martinez case contains dictum to the effect that the Commission May exercise jurisdiction only where — such jurisdiction is given by the legislature. However. in the Martinez case the Court had under consideration Sec- tion 23 of Article XII which reads, in part, as follows: ug The Railroad Commission shall have and exercise such power and jurisdiction to supervise and ’ regulate public utilities, in the State of California, and to fix the rates to be charged for commodities furnished, or services rendered by public utilities as shall be conferred upon it by the Legislature, and the right of the Legislature to confer powers upon the Railroad Commission respecting public utilities is hereby declared to be plenary and to be unlimited by any provision of this Constitution. . . .” : —- The grant of jurisdiction to the Commission over intra- state rates of air carriers is found in Sections 20 and 22 of Article XIT of the constitution. The provision quoted from Section 23 of said Article can claim no priority over oie Sections 20 and 22 of said Article unless the former pro- vision is more specific than the latter. As a matter of fact the latter are more specific than the tormer with re- spect to the regulation of rates of “other transportation companies.” Should there be any possible ground for doubt on this point the provisions of Section 23 are con- clusive against the contentions of respondents. Said Sec- tion 23 further provides, in part, as follows: a Nothing in this section (Section 23 of Article XII) shall be construed as a limitation upon any power conferred upon the Railroad Commission by any provision of this Constitution now existing or adopted concurrently herewith.” In the face of these plain and unambiguous provisions of the constitution and in view of the holding in the Short Line Railroads case, supra, the dictum in the Martinez case cannot be considered as establishing a rule of law con- trary thereto. The Civil Aeronautics Act does not purport to extend economic regulation to intrastate transportation of per- sons or property other than mail. The states are there- fore free to regulate intrastate rates and fares of air car- riers to the same extent as they regulate intrastate rates and fares of railroads, trucking and bus companies, and telephone and telegraph utilities. (Cooley v. Board of Port Wardens (1851), 12 How. (U. S.) 299, 13 L. Ed. 996; Minnesota Rates Cases (1913), 230 U. S. 352, 57 L. Ed. 1511; Eicholz v. Public Service Commission (1939), 306 U. S. 268, 83 L. Ed. 641; Smith v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. (1930), 282 U. S. 133, 75 L. Ed. 255; Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. (1934), 292 U. S. 150, 78 L. Ed. 1182.) oat ee Based upon the law and the facts we hold that the jur- isdiction of the Commission in the premises is clear and that such jurisdiction should be exercised. The conten- tion of respondents to the contrary we hold to be without merit. A number of exhibits were submitted in justification of the reasonableness of the $11.70 fare. Among these was a 17-page inter-departmental memorandum of the Civil Aeronautics Board consisting essentially of estimates of revenues generated and expenses incurred by United Air Lines, Inc., and Western Air Lines, Ine., for air coach operations on the Pacific Coast. According to this memo- ~ randum, United incurred a loss of $73,461 in the San Francisco-Los Angeles operations for the period May through August, 1950, and Western similarly incurred — a loss of $27,478 for the period June through August, 1950.‘ It was pointed out that the fare of $11.70 rep- resents an increase of approximately one-half cent per & passenger mile over the $9.95 fare, and that it results in a per-mile fare of about 3% cents, According to the ~ Civil Aeronautics Board, this contrasts with recently in- creased fares of 4% cents per passenger mile now gen- erally prevailing throughout the rest of the country for air coach services. The record in this proceeding is clear that the $11.70 fare was developed, recommended, and in fact urged upon the carriers, by that Board. United Air Lines, Inc., through its traffic manager, in- troduced additional evidence concerning the operation of its coach flights between the San Francisco and Los An- geles areas. For its revenue and expense allocations, how- ever, this company offered only the aforesaid analysis ‘The estimated losses are on the basis of fully allocated costs. FSB a 8 B= ee Sie clAtS a a eateemeneate | en ae mo made by the staff of the Civil Aeronautics Board. United did not submit comparable estimated results for the fu- ture. The following table shows actual operating ex- perience at the $9.95 fare as developed by the Board's staff and submitted by the company. A second column shows, for comparative purposes, the results which would have obtained for the same period if the higher tare had applied and all other conditions were unchange.! UNITED AIR LINES, INC. (Four Months Ending with August, 1950) Actual Adjusted ees Fe e Experience at $9.95 Fare at $11.70 Fare Revenues $549,629 $549,629 Additional Revenue from REE SII” dcccnseedicnajsseticaieeniotinn) = 96,735" Total Operating Revenues ‘ $549,629 $646,364 Operating Expenses: Flying Operations $121,884 Direct Maintenance Flight Eqpt. 36,549 Depreciation—Flight Egqpt. 63,378 Ground & Direct Maintenance 38,160 Ground Operations 90,083 Stewardesses’ Salaries & Expense 8,054 Passenger Insurance & Supplies 9,847 Traffic and Sales 90,529 Advertising and Publicity 11,703 General and Administrative 47 881 Depreciation—Ground Eqpt. 16,925 General Headquarters Expense 88,097 Total Operating Expense $623,090 $623,090" Net Operating Profit® $(_ 73,461) 23,274 Operating Ratio*® 113.4% 96.4% (~___) Denotes Loss 1Revenue resulting from a 17.6 per cent increase in fares. *Carrier did not submit 1951 estimated expenses. 5Before federal income taxes. aati Be The director of budgetary controls of Western Air Lines, Inc., introduced and explained an exhibit showing month-by-month results of coach operations between the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas for the nine months from June, 1950, through February, 1951. The increase in passenger revenues, assuming a fare of $11.70 instead of $9.95, was included, but this company, like United, did not submit estimated revenues or expenses for the future. The actual and adjusted figures for Western Air Lines, Inc., are shown in the table which follows: WESTERN AIR LINES, INC. (Nine Months Ending With February, 1951) Actual? Adjusted Experience Experience at $9.95 Fare at $11.70 Fare Revenues $1,063,527 $1,063,527 Additional revenue from Ree Ge: 184,7932 Total Operating Revenue $1,063,527 $1,248,320 Operating Expenses : Flight Operations $ 263,881 Direct Maintenance 94,114 Depreciation of Flight Eqpt. 126,000 Indirect & Ground Expense 683,770 Total Operating Expenses $1,167,765 — $1,167,7658 Net Operating Profit* (104238) $ 80,555 Operating Ratio* 109.8% 93.6% ( ) Denotes Loss 'February costs based on January experience prorated for 28 days. ?Additional revenue resulting from the increased fare as estimated by the witness. °Carrier did not submit 1951 estimated expenses. “Before federal income tax. California Central Airlines, which operates wholly within the State of California, derives approximately 90 oe per cent of its revenue from coach flights between the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas. The operations of this company were not included in the staff report —* *‘1e Civil Aeronautics Board. Exhibits submitted by the company show revenues, expenses, and estimated costs, as well as various plane-mile and passenger-mile data. According to the evidence, the company earned in the year 1950 a net profit of $1,512; and, if the higher fare and certain increased expenses had been in effect during the year, would have received an estimated net profit of $20,104. The operating ratios would be 99.8 per cent and 98.0 per cent, respectively. The figures as submitted by this com- pany are summarized in the following table: CALIFORNIA CENTRAL AIRLINES (Twelve-Month Period) Year 1950 Year 1951 Actual Estimated Experience Experience at $9.99 Fare at $11.70 Fare Operating Revenues $855,145 $981,371! Operating Expenses: Flying Operations $605,290 Ground Operations 31,508 Ground & Indirect Maintenance 8,995 Passenger Service 15,600 Traffic and Sales 114,806 Advertising & Publicity 31,537 General & Administrative 44,564 Depreciation—-Ground Property 1,333 Total Operating Expenses $853,633 $961 267? Net Operating Revenues? $ 1,512 $ 20,104 Operating Ratio 99.8% 98.0% 1Revenue resulting from the 17.1 per cent increase in fares and an estimated diminution of five per cent in the number of passengers carried. “The estimated expenses for 1951 were not segregated by accounts. 5Before federal income tax. ae ee None of the companies supplied all of the supporting or underlying data which would be desirable, Neverthe- less, considering all of the circumstances of record, the evidence is convincing, and we find as a fact, that the higher fare is justified. Publication. filing and mainten- ance of the fare will be authorized. It is entirely clear, however, and indeed it is not dis- puted, that California Central Airlines, United Air Lines, Inc., and Western Air Lines, Inc., increased their fares without first receiving authorization from this Commis- sion. Timely requests for authority to make the increase were filed, but the showings required by the state con- stitution were made belatedly, and were incomplete at the time the instant investigatory proceeding was instituted and notice thereof served upon the respondents. The order which follows will authorize publication and main- tenance of the $11.70 fare for the future. These com- panies are hereby placed on notice that they are and will hereafter be deemed to be “transportation companies” within the meaning of the Constitution of the State of California, and that they are subject to the prohibitions and requirements of said constitution. We also call the attention of these companies to Section 76(a) of the Public Utilities Act, which provides: “Any public utility which violates or fails to com- ply with any provision of the constitution of this state or of this act, or which fails, omits or neglects to obey, observe or comply with any order, decision, decree, rule, direction, demand or requirement or any part or provision thereof, of the commission, in a case in which a penalty has not hereinbefore been provided for such public utility, is subject to a penalty pee ee of not less than five hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars for each and every offense.” In view of the fact that these air carriers since March 1, 1951, have been charging fares in excess of the fares reflected by their tariffs on file with this Commission as applied to coach operations between the San Francisco Bay area airports and the Los Angeles area airports, we are of the opinion that amounts collected in excess of such tariff fares should be refunded, wherever possible, to passengers who have paid the same and such direction will be incorporated in the order following this opinion. Sec- tions 20, 21 and 22 of Article XII of the State Consti- tution require that such reparation be made. There is some evidence, not hereinbefore discussed, relative to possible failure of some of the respondents to comply strictly with their filed tariff rules governing re- funds or exchanges of unused tickets. This subject was subordinate to the basic issues in this proceeding, and the evidence thereon was in any event inconclusive. On this subject we make no finding of fact. ORDER Public hearings having been had in the above-entitled proceeding, evidence having been received and duly con- sidered, the Commission now being advised and basing its order upon the findings and conclusions set forth in the preceding opinion, It Is Hereby Ordered: 1. That California Central Airlines, United Air Lines, Inc., and Western Air Lines, Inc., be and they are hereby authorized to publish, file and maintain a one-way adult coach fare of $11.70 for transportation of passengers be- _ sen geseon stents eves Prat: te aeees rie + aS er” i tween San Francisco Bay area airports on the one hand and Los Angeles area airports on the other hand. 2. That California Central Air Lines, United Air Lines, Inc., and Western Air Lines, Inc., be and they are hereby ordered to make reparation, wherever possible, to passengers paying coach fares for transportation be- tween the San Francisco Bay area airports on the one hand the the Los Angeles area airports on the other hand, in excess of the fares as reflected by the tariffs of these air carriers on file with this Commission. 3. That California Central Airlines, United Air Lines, Inc., and Western Air Lines, Inc., and all other of the re- spondents operating as common carriers, be and they are hereby adjured and admonished that they may not, for the transportation of passengers and property in intra- state commerce between points within the State of Cali- fornia, raise any rate of charge under any circumstances whatsoever except upon a showing before the Commission that such increase is justified, make unreasonable charges, discriminate in charges or facilities, nor in any other manner violate any of the provisions of Article XII of the Constitution of the State of California applicable to transportation companies. 4. That tariffs heretofore filed with this Commission by Arrow Airways, Inc., and Robin Airways, Inc., naming fares, rules and regulations governing transpor- tation of passengers between points in this state, be and they are hereby canceled, 5. That the several pending motions for dismissal of the proceeding as to particular respondents, and the pend- ing motion for issuance of a “preliminary order,” be and they are hereby denied. 6. That, upon the effective date of this order, this investigation be and it is hereby discontinued. The Secretary is hereby directed to cause a certified copy of this decision forthwith to be served personally on Arrow Airways, Inc., California Central Airlines, Kenneth G. Friedkin, doing business as Pacific Southwest Airlines, Robin Airways, Inc., Southwest Airways Com- pany, Transworld Airlines, United Air Lines, Inc., and Western Air Lines, Inc. The effective date of this decision shall be fifteen (15) days after the date hereof. Dated at San Francisco, California, this 24th day of April, 1951. R. E. MItTTELSTAEDT, Justus F, CraAEMER, Haro.tp P. Huts, KENNETH POTTER, Peter E. MITCHELL, Commissioners. ememmmne = meas soreness ee eae DEC § 195 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM 1951 No. 464 UNITED AIR LINES, ING, Appellant, vs. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE © OF CALIFORNIA d APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THY STATE OF CALIFORNIA ‘ STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT'S ; STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM Kverert C. McKeaee, Chief Counsel, Wusow E. Cuiiye, Associate Counsel, Counsel for Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. OEY Sor os Saw INDEX Suspsect Ixpex I. Statement of the facts II. Statement of the issues on appeal III. No substantial Federal question is aman by the attempted appeal A. Preliminary statement B. The order of the Commission regulating the intrastate fares charged intrastate passengers by air carriers engaged both in intrastate and interstate com- merce for transportation between points in California does not place such a burden on interstate commerce as to constitute a violation of the Inter- state Commerce Clause of the Con- stitution of the United States (Sub- section 3 of Section 8, Article I). C. The Congress through the Civil Aero- nauties Act of 1938, as Amended (52 Stats. 977, 49 U. S. Code 401 et seq.) has not pre-empted the field of eco- nomic regulation of air carriers en- gaged in interstate commerce, or in the transportation of U. S. mail, or both, so as to preclude the Commission from regulating the intrastate fares charged intrastate passengers by such carriers for transportation between points in GCE os sche re ena coees the D. United can comply with the Reparation Order of the Commission without violating the provisions of Section 403(b) of the Civil Aeronautics Act (49 U.S. Code 483(b)) . —8759 il INDEX KE. The Commission’s order requiring air carriers engaged both in intrastate and interstate commerce to make reparation to passengers paying intra- state fares for transportation between points in California in excess of the intrastate fares included in their au- thorized tariffs on file with the Com- mission does not deprive such carrier of property without due process of law IV. Conclusion and motion to dismiss or affirm Taste or Cases Crrep Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern Railway Company (1951), 341 U.S. (Preliminary Print) 341, 95 L. ed. Adv. Ops. 708 Arkansas Railroad Commission vy. Chicago R.1. & P. Co. (1927), 274 U. 8. 597, 71 L. ed, 1224 California Central Airlines, et al. (Decision No. 43932, 1950), 49 Cal. P.U.C. 494 California Central Airlines, et al. (Decision No. 45624, 1951), 50 Cal. P.U.C. 563 Cooley v. Board of Port Wardens (1851), 12 How. (U. 8.) 299, 13 L. ed. 996 Davies Warehouse Co. v. Bowles (1944), 321 U.S. 144, 88 L. ed. 635 Eicholz v. Public Service Commission (1939), 306 U. S. 268, 83 L. ed. 641 Kelly v. Washington (1937), 302 U.S. 1, 82 L. ed. 3 Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co, (1934), 292 U.S. 151, 78 L. ed. 1182 Minnesota Rate Cases (1913), 230 U.S. 352, 57 L. ed. ii .. North Carolina v. United States (1945), 325 U.S. 507, 89 L. ed. 1760 . Palmer v. Massachusetts (1939), 308 U. S. 79, 84 L. ed. 93 Page 17 18 INDEX Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Michigan Public Service Commission (1951), 341 U.S. (Preliminary Print) 329, 95 L. ed. Adv. Ops. 673 Rosenhan v. United States (1942), 131 F. (2d) 932, cert. den., 318 U.S. 790, 87 L. ed. 1156 Smith v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. (1930), 282 U.S. 133, 75 L. ed, 255 STATUTES California Constitution : Article XII Civil Aeronautics Act (52 Stat. 977, 49 U. S. Code 401, et seq.) Section 1(2), 49 U.S. Code 401 (2) Section 1(3), 49 U. S. Code 401 (3) Section 1(10), 49 U.S. Code 401 (10) Section 401, 49 U. S. Code 481 Section 403, 49 U.S. Code 483. Section 403(b), 49 U.S. Code 483(b) Section 404, 49 U. S. Code 484 Section 406(b), 49 U. S. Code 486(b) Section 601, 49 U. S. Code 551 Constitution of the United States: Article I, Section 8, Subsection 3 14th Amendment, Section 1 Interstate Commerce Act: 49 U.S. Code 1, et seq. Rules on Appeal for the Supreme Court (1951), 6 Cal. (2d) 1: Rule 27 Rule 53 WOT epee iii Page 11 13 10 : 4 ; | | i ; ¥ 4 4 iv INDEX Brits, Proceepines anp Law Review Articie Aviation Bills, 78th Congress: Page Lea Bill, H.R. 1012 14 Revised Lea Bill, H.R. 3420 14 H.R. Report No. 784 on H.R. 3420, H.R. Com- mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 15 Boren Bill, H.R. 4845 . re; 14 Reece Bill, H.R. 4848 14 Bailey Bill, 8. 246 14 79th Congress: Lea Bill, H.R. 674 14 Lea Bill, H.R. 3383 La Kap 14 Johnson Bill, 8. 541 ahh 14 80th Congress: Wolverton Bill, H.R. 2337 |. SE cepts 14 8lst Congress: Brewster Bill, S. 423 foes 14 ee ts OE bs os coh c dances aves 14 Johnson Bill, 8. 2485... EE ag ES, fs 14 National Association of Railroad and Utilities Com- missioners Proceedings: 1944 N.A.R.U.C. Proceedings 221....—s........ 14 1945 N.A.R.U.C. Proceedings 299... .......... 14 1946 N.A.R.U.C. Proceedings 210 ......... 14 1947 N.A.R.U.C. Proceedings 128