Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Consolidated Rail Corp. v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided February 23, 1987No. Nos. 81-3080, 81-3082, 82-3113, 82-3114, 82-3116, 82-3144, 82-3175, 83-3336, 83-3337 to 83-3341, 83-3343 to 83-3348, 83-3351, 85-3703 and 85-3704Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBecker, Circuit Judge
I join in Part III of the majority’s opinion, which concerns the ripeness of the parties’ contentions for judicial review. Additionally, I join in the majority’s analysis of the merits in Part IV, except for the portion relating to the Commission’s Management Efficiency constraint. I disagree with the majority when it upholds the Management Efficiency constraint as the Commission presently formulates it. In my view, circumstances exist in which the Commission’s formulation of the Management Efficiency constraint would permit carriers to pass the costs of inefficiencies on to consumers.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Udall v. TallmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Quern v. MandleySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Jorge Santana-Figueroa v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc., Peabody Coal Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, Association of American Railroads, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Intervenors. Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc., Peabody Coal Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Association of American Railroads, Seaboard System Railroad, Inc., IntervenorsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984