JAMES F. MCMANUS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
LAKE CENTRAL AIRLINES, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

2d Cir. | 1964-01-10
Nos. 233, Docket 28465
327 F.2d 212 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1964) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the airline's conduct, authorized by a CAB-approved resolution, was immune from antitrust laws.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff, a travel agent, alleged an airline conspired to exclude him from selling air transportation. This exclusion was based on the airline's memb…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

James F. McManus appeals from a judgment for defendant Lake Central Airlines, Inc., entered on a verdict directed by the trial court pursuant to Rule 50, F.R.Civ.Proc., at the conclusion of all of the evidence. McManus, the proprietor of a travel agency in Levittown, Long Island, had alleged that Lake Central had conspired with other airlines to exclude the plaintiff from the sale of domestic air transportation. At the trial, it became clear that these allegations were wholly predicated on Lake Central’s membership in the Air Transport Association of America, and the resolution of that organization restricting the dealings of member airlines to travel agencies approved by the association.

The directed verdict was entirely proper. The resolution of which McManus complains was approved by the Civil Aeronautics Board pursunt to the predecessor section of 49 U.S.C. § 1382, upon a finding that it was not adverse to the public interest. Under the terms of 49 U.S.C. § 1384, such approval immunized any conduct “authorized, approved, or required” by the resolution from the reach of the antitrust laws. Indeed, at the behest of this very appellant, this court previously reviewed and upheld the Board against identical complaints that the approved practices were unduly restrictive. McManus v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 286 F. 2d 414 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 928, 81 S.Ct. 1649, 6 L.Ed. 2d 388 (1961).

And in that opinion, which set forth all of the material facts relevant to the present case, we expressly recognized the immunity from antitrust prosecution which CAB approval had afforded.

The appellant is here seeking precisely that relief to which our earlier opinion told him he was not entitled. The judgment is affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw