ESTES EXPRESS LINES ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Am. Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Serv., 397 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1970)
  …d 126, 129; Sun Oil Co. v. FPC, 256 F. 2d 233; McKenna v. Seaton, 104 U. S. App. D. C. 50, 259 F. 2d 780. We deal here with the grant of temporary authority similar to that granted in Estes Express Lines v. United States, 292 F. Supp. 842, aff’d, 394 U. S. 718. There the grant of temporary authority was upheld even though there may not have been literal compliance with subsections (8) and (9) of the Commission’s rules. That result was in line with § 210a (a) of the Act which was designed to provide the Co…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• REA Express, Inc. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 568 F.2d 940 (2d Cir. 1977)
  …Hub service and accordingly granted the temporary authority. Saginaw Transfer Co. v. United States, 312 F.Supp. 662 (E.D. Mich.1970) (three-judge court); Estes Express Lines v. United States, 292 F.Supp. 842 (E.D.Va.1968) (three-judge court), aff’d, 394 U.S. 718 (1969) (per curiam) (grant of temporary authority sustained). Railway Express commenced Hub operations in 1968 under the temporary authority. Its successor, REA, took no effective steps thereafter in prosecuting the permanent authority application.…
• Brink's, Inc. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 613 F.2d 1079 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
  …affirmed); Estes Express Lines v. United States, 292 F.Supp. 842 (E.D.Va.1968) (3-judge court) (shipper’s need for nationwide, connected service supports temporary authority; existence of local interlining carriers not sufficient), aff’d per curiam, 394 U.S. 718, 89 S.Ct. 1469, 22 L.Ed.2d 673 (1969); Superior Trucking Co. v. United States, 302 F.Supp. 257 (N.D. Ga.1969) (3-judge court) (shipper’s statements that existing carriers lacked necessary equipment, were remotely located, and failed to answer servic…