| | FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code |
 | | That court felt that because 1 (14) (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act had required a "hearing," and because that section was originally enacted in 1917, Congress was probably thinking in terms of a "hearing" such as that described in the opinion of this Court in the roughly contemporaneous case of ICC v. |
 | | [410 U.S. If we were to agree with the reasoning of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York with respect to the type of hearing required by the Interstate Commerce Act, the Commission's action might well violate those requirements, even though it was consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. |
 | | [410 U.S. these explicit directions that particular factors be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision, the court held that the statute's requirements of "notice and hearing" were not sufficient to bring into play the provisions of 556 and 557 of the Administrative Procedure Act. |
| caselaw.lp.findlaw.com /cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=410&page=242 (8541 words) |