New England Air Express, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 194 F.2d 894 (D.C. Cir. 1952). · Go Syfert
Search
New England Air Express, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 194 F.2d 894 (D.C. Cir. 1952). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Air Transp. Assocs., Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 199 F.2d 181 (D.C. Cir. 1953)
How cited ↗
Cited for
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NEW ENGLAND AIR EXPRESS, Inc.
v.
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD
11274_1.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Feb 21, 1952.
Published opinion
194 F.2d 894
1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 4052
Seymour S. Guthman and Alexander A. Fleischfarb, Washington, D. C., for petitioner., O. D. Ozment, Attorney, Civil Aeronautics Board, Washington, D. C., with whom Asst. Atty. Gen. H. G. Morison and Emory T. Nunneley, Jr., General Counsel, Civil Aeronautics Board, and John H. Wanner, Associate General Counsel, Civil Aeronautics Board, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for respondent. Charles H. Weston, Chief, Appellate Section of the Antitrust ' Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for respondent.
Bazelon, Edgerton, Fahy, Per Curiam.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

. Petitioner, a large irregular air carrier, asks review of an order of the Civil Aeronautics Board suspending the Letter of Registration which permits it to operate. Civil Aeronautics Act, as amended, 52 Stat. 1024, § 1006, 49 U.S.C.A. § 646. Petitioner has no certificate of public convenience and necessity. In the hearing which led to the suspension order gross violations of the Act and of the Board’s Economic Regulations by .petitioner were charged, admitted, and found. The Board allowed petitioner to file affidavits, documentary evidence, and written argument, and also to “present orally its reasons why its registration should not be suspended * * *." Standard Airlines, Inc., v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 29, 32, 177 F.2d 18, 21.

Petitioner did not ask the Board for an evidentiary hearing. It now contends it should have had such a hearing. But the public interest appears to have justified petitioner’s suspension and at least some of petitioner’s violations were willful. For both of these reasons the suspension hearing was not subject to the requirements of § 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1008(b). Moreover petitioner’s objection to the Board’s hearing was not presented to the[*895] Board and therefore comes*too late. Seaboard & Western Airlines, Inc., v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 78, 183 F.2d 975.

Affirmed.