Interstate Commerce Commission v. J-T Transport Company, Inc.

PETITIONER: Interstate Commerce Commission
RESPONDENT: J-T Transport Company, Inc.
LOCATION: United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit

DOCKET NO.: 17
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1958-1962)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 368 US 81 (1961)
ARGUED: Oct 17, 1961 / Oct 18, 1961
DECIDED: Dec 04, 1961

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Interstate Commerce Commission v. J-T Transport Company, Inc.

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 18, 1961 (Part 2) in Interstate Commerce Commission v. J-T Transport Company, Inc.
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 17, 1961 in Interstate Commerce Commission v. J-T Transport Company, Inc.

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 18, 1961 (Part 1) in Interstate Commerce Commission v. J-T Transport Company, Inc.

Earl Warren:

The Interstate Commerce Commission appellant versus J-T Transport Company Incorporated et al.

And number 18 U.S.A.C. Transport Incorporated versus J-T Transport Company Incorporated.

Mr. Taylor, you may continue your argument.

Felix Frankfurter:

Mr. Taylor, before you begin so I shouldn't be breaking in on you.

B. Franklin Taylor, Jr.:

Yes sir.

Felix Frankfurter:

Did I understand you to say that the practice or the orders of the Commission, or whatever the basis for your statement, that it has been said in the law prior the 1957 amendment, taking into account what the District Court here said couldn't be taken into account?

B. Franklin Taylor, Jr.:

I said that it has been the general practice of the Commission actually since virtually the inception of the Motor Carrier Regulation in 1935, to give due consideration to the adequacy of service that could be rendered by protesting existing carriers.

Felix Frankfurter:

That's what this is about, isn't it?

B. Franklin Taylor, Jr.:

Yes, Your Honor.

In part, it's whether they may consider that and then (Voice Overlap).

Felix Frankfurter:

Are you -- am I right to infer that if this decision stands, there would be a break in that practice or a denial of something that has been enforced by the Commission from 1935 to 1957?

B. Franklin Taylor, Jr.:

Well, we would certainly say --

Felix Frankfurter:

And I'm not (Voice Overlap) and I just want to know what the --

B. Franklin Taylor, Jr.:

Yes.

Felix Frankfurter:

-- what the material showed?

B. Franklin Taylor, Jr.:

If the extreme position of appellees here and what the court below may have found --

Felix Frankfurter:

Well now, certainly --

B. Franklin Taylor, Jr.:

-- it should be the law that the Commission may not consider this sort of showing at all.

Felix Frankfurter:

But now the Government doesn't stand on that, does it?

B. Franklin Taylor, Jr.:

United States, no.

Felix Frankfurter:

Alright.

B. Franklin Taylor, Jr.:

They agree with the (Voice Overlap).

Felix Frankfurter:

Well, now assume -- assume the decision below is not to be read to the extreme extent, to which some of the appellees at all had been would put it, assume that they say that on the record here while it may take into account what happens to the common carriers addressed on that almost exclusively or with insufficient basis either in facts or in finding --

B. Franklin Taylor, Jr.:

Well that -- that is --

Felix Frankfurter:

-- with that point of view.

B. Franklin Taylor, Jr.:

-- that is really the second phase, which would be embraced by the second and third questions whether --

Felix Frankfurter:

What I want to know is whether there was a -- whether -- what was decided in this case, forget the talk, what was decided in your view, the Commission's view is the departure from what had been the Commission's practice under to the Motor Carrier Act for 20 years?

B. Franklin Taylor, Jr.:

We are afraid that that is -- that is the case and it might be a rather abrupt and extreme departure.

For example, the appellees have argued in their brief, as I understand their ultimate position, that if a contract carrier meets the definition of contract carriage in terms of the number of shippers and the nature of the service proposed, that it virtually follows that the certificate or that the permit should issue.

As I read their briefs, there are a number of statements, which it seems to me, definitely lead to that conclusion.