Legal Opinion
Isbrandtsen Co. v. United States
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 21, 1951PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
1. The plaintiff, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Agriculture contend that in no circumstances can a dual-rate provision (i. e., an exclusive patronage, or dual-rate, or contract-noncontract provision) in a conference agreement be valid under 46 U.S.C.A. § 812, Third. 2 We need not, and do not, decide whether or not that contention is sound. 3 For the purposes of this decision, we shall assume that, as the Board contends, in some circumstances the Board may, pursuant to 46 U.S.C.A. § 814, 4 approve a conference agreement containing such a provision. For even…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- United States v. Borden Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Fashion Originators' Guild of America, Inc. v. Federal Trade CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- United States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Estate of Sanford v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Federal Maritime Board v. Isbrandtsen Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Isbrandtsen Co., Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1954
- In Re KallenSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1983
- City of New York v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1972
- Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1965
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.