Summary

Portrait of Charles Evans Whittaker Charles Evans Whittaker Minneapolis St. Louis Railway Company v…

Minneapolis contends that § 5 (11) operates only in futuro and confers 'no authority to purge the taint of a transaction illegal at the time it was brought to the Commission.' Whether there is merit in that contention, as a legal abstraction, we need not decide, for here the existing contractual arrangements through which Pennsylvania asks authority to acquire 50% of the Western stock look entirely to the future.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Charles Evans Whittaker Charles Evans Whittaker Minneapolis St. Louis Railway Company v…

We think it is clear from this summary of its analysis and findings that the Commission fully estimated the scope and appraised the effects of any curtailment of competition which might result from the acquisition of Western by the Santa Fe and Pennsylvania, and, after having done so, concluded that their acquisition and plan of operation of Western lessening of competition. Congress has ilessening of competition.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Charles Evans Whittaker Charles Evans Whittaker Minneapolis St. Louis Railway Company v…

By the express terms of § 8 (b) , the Commission is not required to make subordinate findings on every collateral contention advanced, but only upon those issues of fact, law, or discretion which are 'material.' From a thorough examination of the record, we are persuaded that the Commission has made adequate subsidiary findings upon all material issues and has made the ultimate findings required by § 5 (2) , that they support the Commission's order, and are, in turn, supported by substantial evidence.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature