Pensick & Gordon, Inc. v. California Motor Express
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
WEIGEL, District Judge.
When these cases were considered by us last year, 1 we held that the District Court was without jurisdiction to determine whether or not appellee motor carriers failed to provide service as required by Section 216 of the Motor Carrier Act (49 U.S.C.A. § 316). We affirmed dismissal of a complaint grounded in claims of violation of that statute because of our view that the statute itself vested such jurisdiction exclusively in the Interstate Commerce Commission. We held, further, that the effort of appellant, in an amended complaint, to assert a common law right of action…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- United States v. Western Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. MERCHANTS'BANK.Supreme Court of the United States · 1848
- Federal Maritime Board v. Isbrandtsen Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
- York Company v. Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Larabee Flour Mills Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Middlewest Motor Freight Bureau v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1970
- United States v. Associated Transport, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1974
- B.J. Alan Co. v. United Parcel ServiceDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1988
- Middlewest Motor Freight Bureau v. United States of America, Middlewest Motor Freight Bureau v. National Small Shipments Traffic Conference, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1970