Summary

Thurgood Marshall Port of Boston Marine Terminal Association v…

Transatlantic argues that even if the Administrative Orders Review Act provides the exclusive method for reviewing final orders of the Maritime Commission, the Commission's order here was not a final order. But its argument that the order lacked finality because it had no independent effect on anyone and resembled an interlocutory court order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint has the hollow ring of another era. [20] Agency orders that have no independent coercive effect are common.
Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall Port of Boston Marine Terminal Association v…

Whenever the Federal Maritime Board finds that any such rate, fare, or charge is demanded, charged, or collected it may alter the same to the extent necessary to correct such unjust discrimination or prejudice and make an order that the carrier shall discontinue demanding, charging, or collecting any such unjustly discriminatory or prejudicial rate, fare, or charge.↑ The Commission also held that the shift in the incidence of the charge did not conflict with the rights and duties of a carrier under the regular legally binding tariff.
Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall Port of Boston Marine Terminal Association v…

Prior to 1964, the Terminal Association administered a tariff, [4] on file with the Commission, which assessed charges against a consignee whenever cargo remained on a pier or wharf for more than five days. [5] In that year, the Terminal Association, without prior approval of the Commission, shifted the incidence of the tariff so that a daily fee of one-half cent per 100 pounds was charged a carrier-vessel whenever the failure to remove cargo resulted from a strike by longshoremen.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature