Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission
- Decided
- March 24, 1966
- Docket
- 63
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,949 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that even if two inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the evidence, the agency’s interpretation may be supported by substantial evidence — Committee for Fairly Traded Venezuelan Cement v. United States (2003)
- stating that the substantial evidence test "frees the reviewing courts of the time-consuming and difficult task of weighing the evidence" — Abilene Sheet Metal, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (1980)
- stating that "the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent [the fact finder's] findings from being supported by substantial evidence" — Cross v. Department Of Transportation (1997)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*609] Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.
We have been asked, in this case, to determine whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to set aside a reparation order of the Federal Maritime Commission which was before it upon the consolidated appeals of the shipper and the carrier, the shipper asking that the award be increased and the carrier asking that it be set aside. In addition, we have been asked to determine whether the Court of Appeals applied the proper standard of review when it set aside the reparation award. We answer the first question in the affirmative and the second in the negative. Accordingly, we reverse.
Flota Mercante Grancolombiana, S. A. (Flota) is a common carrier engaged in carrying bananas from South America to the United States. In July 1955, it entered into an exclusive two-year carrying contract with Panama Ecuador, a banana shipper, and gave Panama Ecuador an option to renew the contract for an additional three years, subject to its meeting the rate offered by any other shipper. This exclusive contract was executed after the Federal Maritime Board, in June 1953, had ruled that Flota’s competitor, Grace Line, was a common carrier of bananas and had violated the Shipping Act, 1916, §§14 Fourth [1] and 16 First, [2] by refusing [*610] to allocate its banana shipping space equitably among all qualified shippers. [3]
Statutes cited
- 5 U.S.C. § 1032
- 5 U.S.C. § 1033
- 28 U.S.C. § 1912
- 5 U.S.C. § 1009
- 46 U.S.C. § 821
- 46 U.S.C. § 812
- 46 U.S.C. § 815
- 46 U.S.C. § 1111
- 5 U.S.C. § 1001
Cite this
Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission, 383 U.S. 607 (1966)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.