Legal Opinion · Dissent

Continental Airlines, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Transportation

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided August 26, 1988No. 87-1497Published

1DissentGarth, Senior Circuit Judge

I cannot agree with the majority’s analysis, and hence, I dissent from its holding which directs the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) to conform to the stringent time limits of § 401(c)(2)(B) — time limits which have no application by statute, purpose or reason to a § 408 “merger-condition.”

I

In this case, United Airlines has been permitted to acquire the Pacific routes of Pan Am, subject to the condition, however, that if DOT deemed in a future proceeding that the public’s interest would be served *264by authorizing another U.S. flag carrier to provide service, that United would be required…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. National Labor Relations Board v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 23Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. Montana Power Co. v. Federal Power CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1970

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API