Legal Opinion

Howard Terminal v. United States of America and Federal Maritime Board

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided December 19, 1956No. 15258_1PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

POPE, Circuit Judge.

Howard Terminal, petitioner here, filed a complaint before the Federal Maritime Board, in a matter entitled Howard Terminal v. Matson Navigation Company, and given the Board’s docket number 796. The general purpose of the complaint was to attack and set aside agreements respecting the use of port terminal facilities made between Matson Navigation Company and the operators of certain port terminals, who are now intervenors here. It has been summarized by the parties here as alleging: “(1) That interveners had failed to disclose the complete agreements between them as…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MacKeySupreme Court of the United States · 1956
  2. Forgay v. ConradSupreme Court of the United States · 1848
  3. Collins v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  4. Radio Station Wow, Inc. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  5. Republic Natural Gas Co. v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1948

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. John L. Rogers v. Alaska Steamship CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
  2. Caddo Tribe v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1957
  3. Associated-Banning Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1957
  4. Associated-Banning Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1957
  5. Associated-Banning Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API