In this section you will find cases on Airlines looking for relief from the courts or that a controlling agency is taking some form of action. If you would like to add to this section please let us know. We hope this section provides some educational benefit.
TOOL CO. ET AL. V. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC. OCTOBER 10, 1972
(Home Owner) V. ALLEGHENY COUNTY JANUARY 16, 1962
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMISSION V. CONTINENTAL AIR LINES, INC. MARCH 28,
1963 *TOGETHER WITH NO. 492, GREEN V. CONTINENTAL AIR LINES,
INC., ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT.
AIRLINES, INC., V. NORTH AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., MARCH 6, 1956
In a proceeding under sec. 411 of the civil aeronautics act, the civil aeronautics board found that respondent's use of the name "North American" in the air transportation industry, in which it competed with American airlines, had caused "substantial public confusion," by causing persons to check in at the wrong carrier, attempt to purchase transportation from the wrong carrier, meet flights of the wrong carrier, and otherwise, that such public confusion was "likely to continue" and was an unfair method of competition within the meaning of sec. 411. It further found that the public interest required elimination of the use of the name, and it ordered respondent to cease and desist from engaging in air transportation under the name of "North American airlines" or any combination of the word "American." Held:
AERONAUTICS BOARD V. AMERICAN AIR TRANSPORT OCTOBER 20, 1952
A certificate of the court of appeals certifying to this court, under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1254(3), questions concerning the validity of a regulation of the civil aeronautics board is dismissed on the authority of cases cited in the opinion; and an application of the board for an order requiring the court of appeals to send up the entire record, thus bringing up "the entire matter in controversy" for decision, is denied.
AIRWAYS, INC. V. NEBRASKA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND ASSESSMENT MARCH
Pursuant to a Nebraska tax statute, an apportioned ad valorem tax was levied on the flight equipment of appellant, an interstate air carrier. Appellant is not incorporated in Nebraska and does not have its principal place of business or "home port" in that state, but its aircraft make eighteen stops per day regularly in Nebraska and approximately one-tenth of appellant's revenue is derived from the pickup and discharge of Nebraska freight and passengers. Appellant challenged the validity of the tax under the federal constitution, but it did not challenge the reasonableness of the apportionment to its
property. Held: appellant's flight equipment is not immune from taxation by Nebraska for want of situs there or because regulation of air navigation by the federal government precludes such state taxation.
AIR LINES, INC. V. SUMMERFIELD POSTMASTER GENERAL DECEMBER 9, 1953
Civil aeronautics board, in fixing mail-pay subsidy for air carriers, to "take into consideration ... The need of each such air carrier for compensation ... Sufficient ... Together with all other revenue of the air carrier, to enable such air carrier ... To maintain and continue the development" of a national air-transportation system. Held: in fixing the mail-pay subsidy for the foreign operations of the carrier here involved during a past period, the board erred in refusing to offset against the carrier's need for foreign operations excess earnings during the same period on its domestic operations
AERONAUTICS BOARD V. DELTA AIR LINES, INC. APRIL 27, 1961 *TOGETHER WITH
NO. 493, LAKE CENTRAL AIRLINES, INC., V. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., ALSO ON
CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT.
Once a certificate of public convenience and necessity granted by the Civil Aeronautics Board to an air line has become effective under sec. 401(f) of the federal aviation act of 1958, the board may not alter it without the formal notice and hearing required by sec. 401(g) - even though the board, at the time of certification, has purported to reserve jurisdiction to make summary modifications pursuant to petitions for reconsideration and such petitions have been filed within the time prescribed by the board's regulations and before the effective date of the certificate.
AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. V. UNITED STATES NOVEMBER 8, 1962 *TOGETHER
WITH NO. 47, UNITED STATES V. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., ET AL.,
ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE SAME COURT.
Charging violations of secs. 1, 2, and 3 of the Sherman act, the United States brought this civil suit against Pan American World Airways, W.R. Grace & Co. And their jointly owned subsidiary, Pan American-Grace Airways (Panagra). The complaint alleged that, when Pan American and grace organized Panagra in 1928, they agreed that Pan American and Panagra would not parallel each other's air routes, that this was a combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade and monopolization and attempted monopolization of air transportation between the United States and South America and also that Pan American had used its control over Panagra to prevent it from obtaining authority from the civil aeronautics board to extend its route from the canal zone to the united states. The district court found that Pan American had violated sec. 2 of the Sherman act by suppressing Panagra's efforts to extend its route from the canal zone to this country, and it ordered Pan American to divest itself of its stock in Panagra; but it dismissed the complaint against Grace and Panagra, holding that none of their practices violated the Sherman act. Held: the narrow questions presented by this complaint had been entrusted by congress to the Civil Aeronautics Board, and the entire complaint should have been dismissed.
AERO. BD. V. STATE AIRLINES, Inc., DECEMBER 12, 1949
Under the civil aeronautics act of 1938, the civil aeronautics board consolidated 45 route applications of 25 airlines into one area proceeding. After hearings, it made findings of fact as to what new routes should be established and which of the applicants could best serve these routes. It entered orders authorizing certificates of convenience and necessity for several new routes in the area. One applicant was authorized to engage in air transportation along certain of these routes, which were different from those described in its applications. Its applications requested authority to transport on "the routes detailed herein, or such modification of such routes as the Board may find public necessity and convenience require" and also contained prayers for general relief.
V. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, FEBRUARY 8, 1949
1) the civil aeronautics board is without authority, under the Civil Aeronautics act of 1938 as amended, to fix a new mail rate for air carriers and to make it retroactive for a period in which a final rate previously fixed by the board was in effect and unchallenged by the initiation of the mail rate proceeding. 2) section 406(a) of the act, which empowers the board to fix rates for the transportation of mail by aircraft and "to make such rates effective from such date as it shall determine to be proper," is not to be construed as authorizing the board to make a rate retroactive to a date earlier than the date of the commencement of the rate proceeding.
UTILITIES COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA V. UNITED AIR LINES, INC. NOVEMBER 12,
Per Puriam., This case is here on appeal from a judgment of a three-judge court for the northern district of California. United Air Lines v. California Public Utilities Commission, 109 f. Supp. 13. The judgment Is reversed on authority of public service commission v. Wycoff co.,
AIR LINES, INC. V. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD DECEMBER 9, 1953
Civil aeronautics board, in fixing mail-pay subsidy for air carriers, to "take into consideration ... The need of each such air carrier for compensation ... Sufficient ... Together with all other revenue of the air carrier, to enable such air carrier ... To maintain and continue the development" of a national air-transportation system. Held: in fixing mail-pay subsidy for the air carrier in this case, the Board was required to take into consideration the carrier's profits derived from (1) the operation of restaurants and other concessions at airports, (2) the sale of tangible assets to another air carrier, and (3) the sale of a route to another air carrier.
AIRWAYS V. PAN AMERICAN APRIL 29, 1968
Per Curiam. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the second Circuit is affirmed by an equally divided court.
Jill E. BROWN-HILTZ v UNITED AIRLINES, December 11, 1997 Jill E. Brown-Hiltz ("Brown") appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of United Air Lines, Inc., Robert Feiten and Kenyon Spencer (collectively, the "defendants"). Brown contends that the court erred in dismissing her lawsuit, in which she claimed that United refused to hire her as a flight officer on account of her race and sex in violation of 42 the Civil Rights Act of 1964
|ŠAvStop Online Magazine Contact Us Return Home|
Grab this Headline Animator