How cited: Trans-Pacific Freight Conference Of Japan v. Federal Maritime Board · Go Syfert

Trans-Pacific Freight Conference Of Japan v. Federal Maritime Board (1962)

green · 40 citation events across 9 courts. Showing the 6 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1962 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
196219942026
Rule Authority · D.C. Cir.
Alcoa replies that the ICC’s decision must be final, because it meets the test of “ ‘imposing] an obligation, denying] a right or fix[ing] some legal relationship.’ ” Trans-Pacific Freight Conference of Japan v. Federal Maritime Board, 302 F.2d 875, 877 (D.C.Cir.1962) (quoting earlier cases).
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
The Federal Maritime Commission has no power to enjoin, prior to a final determination of their validity, rates or conduct which might violate the Shipping Act of 1916, Trans-Pacific Freight Conference of Japan v. Federal Maritime Board, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 290 , 302 F.2d 875, 878-80 (1962), 46 U.S.C. § 821 .
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
The Federal Maritime Commission has no power to enjoin, prior to a final determination of their validity, rates or conduct which might violate the Shipping Act of 1916, Trans-Pacific Freight Conference of Japan v. Federal Maritime Board, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 290 , 302 F.2d 875, 878-80 (1962), 46 U.S.C. § 821 .
Rule Authority · D.C. Cir.
In Trans-Pacific, however, we specifically noted that we were not deciding the question of whether the Commission had the power to issue a cease and desist order prohibiting the parties from carrying out an agreement that had not, but should have, been filed with the Commission for Section 15 approval. 302 F.2d, at 879, n. 8 .
Cited (see also) · D.C. Cir. · signal: compare · 2 citations in this opinion
Compare Trans-Pacific Freight Conference of Japan v. Federal Maritime Board, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 290 , 302 F.2d 875 (1962), where we remarked that the assessment and collection of fines did not in itself appear to be a “modification.” Trans-Pacific primarily involved a dispute over the underlying facts, as opposed to a question of interpretation of the agreement itself. .
Cited · D.C. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Trans-Pacific Freight Conference of Japan v. Federal Maritime Board, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 290, 292 , 302 F.2d 875, 877 (1962); People’s Counsel v. Public Service Commission, D.C.App., 414 A.2d 516, 518 (1980).