Skip to content


United States Vs. Saskatchewan Minerals - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number385 U.S. 94
AppellantUnited States
RespondentSaskatchewan Minerals
Excerpt:
.....icc's dismissal of appellee's complaint that railroad rates were preferential and ordering icc to grant appellee relief held unduly limited icc's duty to reconsider the entire case. 253 f.supp. 504 vacated and remanded. per curiam. these appeals are from an amended judgment of a three-judge district court, 253 f.supp. 504, which set aside an order of the interstate commerce commission dismissing appellee's complaint, 325 i.c.c. 621, and remanded the case to the commission "for further proceedings with instructions to grant relief" to the appellee "in accordance with the opinion heretofore entered by this court on december 8, 1965, and the supplemental memorandum decision entered by this court on march 3, 1966." accepting the district court's decision to set.....
Judgment:
United States v. Saskatchewan Minerals - 385 U.S. 94 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Saskatchewan Minerals, 385 U.S. 94 (1966)

United States v. Saskatchewan Minerals

No. 525

Decided November 14, 1966 *

385 U.S. 94

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Syllabus

District Court's order setting aside on the merits ICC's dismissal of appellee's complaint that railroad rates were preferential and ordering ICC to grant appellee relief held unduly limited ICC's duty to reconsider the entire case.

253 F.Supp. 504 vacated and remanded.

PER CURIAM.

These appeals are from an amended judgment of a three-judge district court, 253 F.Supp. 504, which set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission dismissing appellee's complaint, 325 I.C.C. 621, and remanded the case to the Commission "for further proceedings with instructions to grant relief" to the appellee

"in accordance with the opinion heretofore entered by this court on December 8, 1965, and the Supplemental Memorandum Decision entered by this Court on March 3, 1966."

Accepting the District Court's decision to set aside the Commission's order on the merits, appellants challenge that portion of the judgment which instructs

Page 385 U. S. 95

the Commission to grant relief to the appellee and precludes the Commission from reopening the proceedings for the receipt of additional evidence relevant to the question whether the rates challenged by the appellee are in fact unreasonably preferential in violation of § 3(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 3(1). We agree with the appellants that, under the circumstances present here, this restriction is an improper limitation on the Commission's duty to reconsider the entire case. Arrow Transp. Co. v. Cincinnati, N.O. & T.P. R. Co., 379 U. S. 642 . Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is vacated, and the cases are remanded to the District Court with instructions to enter an order remanding the case to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with the District Court's opinion of December 8, 1965.

It is so ordered.

* Together with No. 526, Great Northern Railway Co. et al. v. Saskatchewan Minerals, also on appeal from the same court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //