Willis Shaw Express v. United States
377 U.S. 159 (1964)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Willis Shaw Express v. United States, 377 U.S. 159 (1964)

Willis Shaw Frozen Express, Inc. v. United States

No. 201

Argued April 23, 27, 1964

Decided May 4, 1964

377 U.S. 159

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

Syllabus

The District Court affirmed an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) granting appellant's common carrier application under the grandfather clause of the Transportation Act of 1958 to transport certain frozen seasonal agricultural products, but substantially curtailing its prior operations.

Held: The ICC should reconsider in light of the carrier' status and ability to perform, and the transportation characteristics and marketing pattern of the products. United States v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp.,315 U. S. 475, 315 U. S. 482-489.

Reversed and remanded.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission under the grandfather clause of the Transportation Act of 1958, § 7(a), 72 Stat. 573, 49 U.S.C. § 303(b)(6), to transport as a common carrier over irregular routes frozen fruits, berries, and vegetables, and frozen seafoods and poultry when transported with such frozen fruits, berries, and vegetables. The Commission granted a certificate which substantially curtailed appellant's prior operations. 89 M.C.C. 377. The District Court affirmed without opinion.

We think United States v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp.,315 U. S. 475, requires reversal of the judgment and

Page 377 U. S. 160

a remand to the Commission for reconsideration in light of appellant's status and performance as a common carrier, the transportation characteristics and marketing pattern of these seasonal agricultural products, and the demonstrated ability of appellant to perform the services.

Reversed and remanded.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITE dissent, agreeing with the three-judge District Court that the Commission correctly employed the statutory standards prescribed by Congress.

"The precise delineation of the area or the specification of localities which may be serviced has been entrusted by the Congress to the Commission."

United States v. Carolina Carriers Corp.,315 U. S. 475, 315 U. S. 480. See also Alton R. Co. v. United States,315 U. S. 15, 315 U. S. 22-23.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.