E. Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., Nat'l Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 261 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1958). · Go Syfert
Search
E. Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., Nat'l Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 261 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1958). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
49 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 26 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: BNSF Railway Company v. The Center for Asbestos Related Disease, Inc. (mtd, 2023-07-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1958 1992 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) BNSF Railway Company v. The Center for Asbestos Related Disease, Inc.
D. Mont. · 2023 · confidence medium
See Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 435 (2001); Mackby I, 261 F.2d at 830; United States v. Aleff, 772 F.3d 508, 511 (8th Cir. 2014); Yates v. Pinellas Hematology & Oncology, P.A., 21 F.4th 1288 , 1314–16 (11th Cir. 2021); Drakeford, 792 F.3d at 388–89.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Unknown case name (2×) also: Cited "see"
1st Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Cir. 1977); Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 261 F.2d at 830.
cited Cited "see" Scarpa v. Smith
S.D.N.Y. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Eastern Air Lines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 261 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1958).
discussed Cited "see" Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
SCOTUS · 1967 · signal: see · confidence high
See Associated Securities Corp. v. SEC, 283 F. 2d 773, 775 , where a stay was denied because “the petitioners . .. [had] not sustained the burden of establishing that the requested stays will not be harmful to the public interest . . see Eastern Air Lines v. CAB, 261 F. 2d 830 ; cf. Scripps-Howard Radio v. FCC, 316 U. S. 4, 10-11 ; 5 U. S. C. § 705 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hartigan v. Pine Lake Village Apartment Co. (In Re Pine Lake Village Apartment Co.)
S.D.N.Y. · 1982 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Eastern Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 261 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1958) with Washington Metropolitan Area v. Holiday Tours, 559 F.2d 841, 844 (D.C.Cir.1977) (relying on Charlie’s Girls, Inc. v. Revlon, 483 F.2d 953, 954 (2d Cir. 1973); Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., 206 F.2d 738, 740 (2d Cir. 1953)).
EASTERN AIR LINES, Inc., Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent; NATIONAL AIRLINES, Inc., Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent
830.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Dec 4, 1958.
261 F.2d 830
Harold L. Russell, Atlanta, Ga., for Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Richard A. Fitzgerald, Washington, D. C., for National Airlines, Inc., O. D. Ozment, Washington, D. C., for Civil Aeronautics Board., R. S. Maurer, Atlanta, Ga., for Delta Air Lines, Inc., C. Frank Reavis, New York City, for Northwest Airlines, Inc., Macon M. Arthur, Washington, D. C., for Capital Airlines, Inc.,
Swan, Medina, Waterman.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The petitioners have filed petitions for review of the Board’s order of October 2, 1958. That order granted amended certificates of public convenience and necessity which were to become effective on November 29, 1958, but were stayed by the Board through December 6, 1958, so that this court might in the meantime hear and dispose of the petitions for stay presented to it. The granting of the requested stay is opposed by the Board and by the intervening airlines, Northwest, Delta, and Capital.

Section 1006(d) of the Civil Aeronautics Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 646(d), authorizes the court to grant a stay “upon good cause shown.” The petitioners also rely upon Section 10(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009(d).

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has recently held in Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission, D.C.Cir., 259 F.2d 921, that stay of an order of an administrative agency may be granted when the following conditions are met:

(a) Where the petitioner is likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal;

(b) Where the petitioner has shown that without a stay it will suffer irreparable injury;

(c) Where there is no substantial harm to other interested persons; and

(d) Where the public interest will not be harmed.

See also Air Line Pilots Ass’n, International v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 2 Cir., 215 F.2d 122, 125; Yakus v.' United States, 321 U.S. 414, 440, 64 S.Ct. 660, 88 L.Ed. 834.

In the interest of expedition it is impossible in the time available before expiration of the Board’s stay to review this complex litigation and state in de[*831] tail our reasons for denying the stay. It will suffice to say that we are not persuaded that the requisite conditions for granting the stay are shown to have been met, particularly those listed above as (c) and (d).

Stay denied.