The case involved the Boston and Maine Corporation's notice under Section 13a(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act to discontinue 40 interstate passenger trains, prompting the ICC to investigate and order continuation of seven trains for one year while permitting the rest to end. The State of New Hampshire appealed the ICC's partial discontinuance decision to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1336, arguing lack of evidentiary support and abuse of discretion. The court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the ICC's decision not to require continued operation of certain trains under 13a(1) does not constitute an appealable order. It reasoned that the statute is self-implementing for interstate service, grants the ICC only limited investigative authority without mandating affirmative findings for discontinuance, and contrasts with the more formal process required for intrastate service under 13a(2), indicating Congress's intent to preclude judicial review.
This case involved a dispute over the computation of a tax credit against estate taxes for gift taxes previously paid on property included in the decedent's estate. The plaintiff, as executor, claimed a credit by aggregating all gifts from 1958 and 1959, while the IRS computed the limitations separately for each year's gifts. The court held that the plaintiff's method was improper under the applicable regulations, which require separate computations for each gift as per congressional intent, and granted judgment to the defendant, though allowing a partial refund for administrative expenses. The decision was based on the statute, regulations, and the superseding effect of post-1948 rules over prior case law.
This case involved an employer suing in New Hampshire state court to enjoin a union from arbitrating grievances under a collective bargaining agreement, after which the union removed the matter to federal court. The court denied the employer's motion to remand, finding the removal timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because the case became removable only upon confirmation that the employer engaged in interstate commerce affecting commerce under the Labor Management Relations Act. The court also held that it had original jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 185 over the dispute as one involving interpretation of a contract between an employer and union in an industry affecting commerce. On the merits, the court granted the union summary judgment and ordered the parties to arbitration, reasoning that the grievances concerned the scope and meaning of ambiguous wage provisions in the agreement and thus fell within the arbitration clause. The temporary state-court injunction against arbitration was dissolved.
This case is a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by two petitioners sentenced to death after New Hampshire convictions for first-degree murder (one involving deliberate homicide and aiding/abetting, the other felony murder during a kidnapping). The petitioners raised constitutional challenges including unreasonable search and seizure, deprivation of counsel, and the state's knowing use of perjured testimony. The court found that state remedies had been exhausted for the search/seizure and counsel claims (which were rejected by the New Hampshire Supreme Court) but not for the perjured testimony claim, which had not been properly presented to the state court. Accordingly, the court declined to address the perjured testimony issue under the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
This case concerned a motion by Miller Auto Company to establish priority for its unrecorded conditional sales contract on a vehicle sold to Lebanon Woolen Mills Corporation over a federal tax lien assessed against the buyer. The court analyzed whether the vendor's security interest was superior to the tax lien, which was assessed and filed after the contract's execution but before its recording, in the context of the buyer's insolvency and the appointment of a receiver. Under 31 U.S.C. § 191, federal tax claims generally have absolute priority in insolvency, but the court reasoned that prior specific and perfected interests, such as mortgages or analogous security interests created under state law like New Hampshire's Uniform Commercial Code, are exempt because they alienate the property from the taxpayer's estate before the tax lien attaches. The opinion distinguished questions of state law (nature of the interest) from federal law (priority determination) and concluded that the conditional sales contract fit within the judicial exception for such prior interests.
The case concerns a trucking company's suit to overturn Interstate Commerce Commission orders that denied both a petition to modify its grandfather certificate for expanded routes and an application for new operating authority based on public convenience and necessity. The district court reviewed the record and found that the Commission had applied an erroneous legal standard by treating a showing of inadequacy in existing competitors' services as indispensable to granting the requested rights, contrary to the broader considerations under the National Transportation Policy. The court also observed inconsistencies in the Commission's findings about the plaintiff's services and its own prior operations. As a result, the court vacated the Commission's orders and remanded the matter for further proceedings under the correct legal framework.