ยง
In the Matter of H

4 Cited authorities

  1. Int. Com. Comm. v. Louis. Nash. R.R

    227 U.S. 88 (1913)   Cited 456 times
    In ICC v. Louisville Nashville R. R., 227 U.S. 88, 33 S.Ct. 185, 57 L.Ed. 431 (1913), the Government attempted to convince the Supreme Court that a decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission was conclusive and "could not be set aside, even if the holding was wholly without substantial evidence to support it."

  2. Chicago Junction Case

    264 U.S. 258 (1924)   Cited 231 times

    APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 489. Argued January 24, 1924. Decided March 3, 1924. 1. An order of the Interstate Commerce Commission permitting one carrier to acquire control of another, made under par. 2 of ยง 5 of the amended Act to Regulate Commerce, which allows this whenever the Commission is of opinion, after hearing, that the acquisition will be in the public interest, is subject to judicial review. P. 263. 2. Such an order is

  3. Kwock Jan Fat v. White

    253 U.S. 454 (1920)   Cited 144 times
    Holding that agency decision "is final, and conclusive upon the courts, unless it be shown that `authority was not fairly exercised, that is, consistently with the fundamental principles of justice embraced within the conception of due process of law,'"

  4. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird

    194 U.S. 25 (1904)   Cited 144 times
    In Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U.S. 25, 44, it was said: "The inquiry of a board of the character of the Interstate Commerce Commission should not be too narrowly constrained by technical rules as to the admissibility of proof.