The case involves a challenge by two railroad companies to the incentive per diem rates established by the Interstate Commerce Commission to address chronic freight car shortages. The District Court set aside the Commission's order, but the Supreme Court ruled that the Commission's proceeding was governed only by § 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The case was remanded for further consideration of other contentions raised by the appellees. The Commission initiated a rule-making procedure in 1967 to investigate the need for an interim incentive element increase, and some of the affected railroads had concerns about the proposed study or requested modifications in the study procedures outlined by the Commission. The case concerns the latest chapter in a long history of freight-car shortages in certain regions and seasons and of attempts to ease them. The District Court erred in assuming that the language in § 1 (14) (a) requiring rulemaking "after hearing" was equivalent to a statutory requirement that the rule "be made on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing." The inquiry of whether the hearing requirements necessarily include submission of oral testimony, cross-examination, or oral arguments, as required by the statute, remains unresolved.
This legal case involves a dispute among judges over an administrative order that imposes charges on non-owning railroads for using boxcars owned by other railroads. One judge dissented, arguing that the order creates a new financial liability without a full hearing that includes the right to present oral testimony, cross-examine witnesses, and present oral argument, which is required by the Administrative Procedure Act. The case concerns the incentive per diem rates to be paid by railroads for the standard boxcars they use, and whether the procedures used by the Interstate Commerce Commission in a rate case complied with the Administrative Procedure Act. The case was remanded to the Commission for further proceedings to determine whether the appellees were prejudiced for lack of a proper hearing. The article discusses three cases related to the procedures of the Commission for establishing incentive per diem rates and the interpretation of § 1 (14) (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, which requires a full hearing when ratemaking must be based on evidential facts. The case also concerns the distinction between quasi-judicial and rulemaking proceedings, and the Morgan II case dealt with the "full hearing" requirement of § 310 of the Packers and Stockyards Act.
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.