Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD et al. v. AMERICAN AIR TRANSPORT, INC. et al., 1952 — 344 U.S. 4 · caselaw · US
General
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD et al. v. AMERICAN AIR TRANSPORT, INC. et al.
344 U.S. 473 S. Ct. 2·Supreme Court of the United States·1952
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD et al. v. AMERICAN AIR TRANSPORT, INC. et al.
No. 126.
Certificate dismissed October 20, 1952.
Solicitor General Perlman and Emory T. Nunneley, Jr. for the Civil Aeronautics Board.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The certificate is dismissed. Labor Board v. White Swan Co., 313 U. S. 23 (1941); Lowden v. Northwestern National Bank & Trust Co., 298 U. S. 160 (1936); White v. Johnson, 282 U. S. 367 (1931); United States v. Union Pacific R. Co., 168 U. S. 505 (1897).
The Civil Aeronautics Board has applied to this Court for an order requiring the Court of Appeals to send up the entire record. To grant such an application would bring “the entire matter in controversy” before the Court for decision. 28 U. S. C. § 1254 (3).
Since the certificate must be dismissed, the Court should not exercise its discretionary power to bring up “the entire matter in controversy” for review. See Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v. Arctic Iron Co., 248 U. S. 178 (1918). Perhaps the Court of Appeals may now wish to hear this case en banc to resolve the deadlock indicated in the certificate and give full review to the entire case. This Court does not normally review orders of administrative agencies in the first instance; and the Court does not desire to take any action at this time which might foreclose the possibility of such review in the Court of Appeals.
For these reasons the Board’s application is denied.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.