Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Luckenbach Steamship Company v. United States

District Court, D. Delaware

Decided December 14, 1959No. Civ. A. 2144Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRodney, District Judge

I am in entire accord with most of the conclusions herein reached. I agree that, under existing provisions of law and procedure, where change of rate of transportation is considered by the carrier, it is the duty of the carrier, intending such change, to file the proposed new rates with the Interstate Commerce Commission. Upon a protest being filed, it becomes the duty of the Interstate Commerce Commission to determine the lawfulness of the new rates. In doing this the Commission may, but need not, order a suspension of the new rates until final hearing. If suspension is ordered, reasons for…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Shippers' Car Supply Committee v. Interstate Commerce CommissionDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API