Legal Opinion
Frozen Food Express v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided April 23, 1956No. 158PublishedCited by 186 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Douglas
Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 Stat. 543, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 301 et seq., grants the Commission pervasive control over motor carriers. Common carriers and contract carriers by motor vehicle, subject to that part of the Act, must have a certificate of public convenience and necessity or a permit issued by the Commission. §§ 206 (a), 209 (a). The Commission has powers of investigation to determine if a motor carrier has complied with the Act; and it has authority to issue an order compelling compliance. § 204 (c). These requirements for a certificate or permit* are not,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- United States v. Los Angeles & Salt Lake RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- El Dorado Oil Works v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Frozen Food Express v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1955
3Cited by186 opinions
- Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- The Toilet Goods Association, Inc. v. John w.ga Rdner, Secretary of Health, Education, and WelfareSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Gardner v. Toilet Goods Assn., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
181 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.