Aktiebolaget Svenska Amerika Linien v. Federal Maritime Commission’s Empirical Analysis
351 F.2d 756 · 1965
Citation profile
17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
April 1971
most recently cited
12 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Switchmen's Union of North America v. Ogden Union Railway & Depot Co. · Hamilton v. Polk · Isbrandtsen Co. v. United States · Willard C. Bond v. Cyrus R. Vance
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Every common carrier by water, or other person subject to this chapter, shall file immediately with the Commission a true copy, or, if oral, a true and complete memorandum, of every agreement with another such carrier or other person subject to this chapter, or modification or cancellation thereof, to which it may be a party or conform in whole or in part, fixing or regulating transportation rates or fares; giving or receiving special rates, accommodations, or other special privileges or advantages; controlling, regulating, preventing, or destroying competition; pooling or apportioning earnings, losses, or traffic; alloting ports or restricting or otherwise regulating the number and character of sailings between ports; limiting or regulating in any way the volume or character of freight or passenger traffic to be carried ; or in any manner providing for an exclusive, preferential, or cooperative working arrangement. The term ‘agreement’ in this section includes understandings, conferences, and other arrangements. “The Commission shall by order, after notice and hearing, disapprove, cancel or modify any agreement, or any modification or cancellation thereof, whether or not previously approved by it, that it finds to be unjustly discriminatory or unfair as between carriers, shippers, exporters, importers, or ports, or between exporters from the United States and their foreign competitors, or to operate to the detriment of the commerce of the United States, or to be contrary to”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“4 and that it shall approve all other agreements. 4 5 1. The Unanimity Rule. 6 In his Initial Decision the Hearing Examiner, appointed by the Commission, concluded that the unanimity rule should be approved. Upon review the Commission (by vote of three members, with two members dissenting) disagreed, finding that the unanimity rule as applied to agents' commissions operates to the detriment of the commerce of the United States and hence must be disapproved under Section 15 of the Shipping Act. 5 The Commission based its factual conclusion on the following considerations: 7”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. U.S. Atlantic & Gulf/australianew Zealand Conference v. Federal Maritime Commission and United States of America, Dow Chemical Co. And Dow Chemical International, Port of New York, Authority, the North Atlantic Ports Association Traffic Board, Intervenors. U.S. Atlantic & Gulf/australianew Zealand Conference v. Federal Maritime Commission and United States of America, the Dow Chemical Company and Dow Chemical International, S.A., Intervenor · Aktiebolaget Svenska Amerika Linien v. Federal Maritime Commission“Any provisions * * * [of the agreements or rules thereunder] which prevent travel agencies in the United States from rendering complete and effective service both to passengers and to ocean carriers operate to the detriment of the commerce of the United States. All conference-imposed restraints which prevent the travel agent from properly performing his function of selling ocean transportation, for which no reasonable justification exists, should be eliminated by the Commission's disapproval, cancellation, or modification of the subject agreements * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.