Legal Opinion

Isbrandtsen Co. v. United States

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided December 20, 1948PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RIFKIND, District Judge.

We are all in agreement that a temporary injunction should issue to maintain the status quo pending further proceedings to adjudicate the legality of the Conference agreements and the action contemplated pursuant thereto.

It may be that the “exclusive patronage” provisions are prohibited by 46 U.S.C.A. § 812 2 and that the Commission is powerless to approve such provisions under 46 U.S.C.A. § 814. Very considerable doubt upon such a holding is thrown by Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd., v. U. S., 1937, 300 U.S. 297, 306, 307 and note 3, 57 S.Ct. 478, 81 L.Ed. 659, and by the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  2. West India Fruit & Steamship Co. v. Seatrain Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Isbrandtsen Co., Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1954
  2. State Of Texas v. Seatrain International, S. A.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
  3. S. S. W., Inc. v. Air Transport Ass'n of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1951
  4. Texas v. Seatrain International, S. A.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
  5. Reeber v. RossellDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1950

12 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