Railroad Antimonopoly Act: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, First Session, on H.R.1140 ... June 27, July 25, and October 10, 1985U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989 - 656 páginas |
Otras ediciones - Ver todas
Términos y frases comunes
agreement alternative anticompetitive antitrust laws apply Association bill Bone Valley bulk commodities Burlington Northern cancellation captive shippers cars Chairman charges Clayton Act coal rates Committee Company competitive access CONGRESS THE LIBRARY Conrail contract courts DEMPSEY deregulation destination economic efficient essential facilities existing freight geographic competition guidelines increase Interstate Commerce Act Interstate Commerce Commission intramodal joint rate Keogh legislation market dominance market power merger miles million monopoly power Montana negotiations NITL operating percent Port Powder River Basin price discrimination problem proceeding product competition Promoting Rail Competition proposed question rail carrier rail industry rail rates rail service rail transportation Railroad Antimonopoly Act railroad facility railroad industry reasonable reciprocal switching regulation regulatory remedy revenue RODINO route rules Section SEIBERLING Sherman Act ship shipments sole facility Southern Staggers Act Staggers Rail Act statement Sub-No Subcommittee SYNAR tion track trackage rights traffic truck Union Pacific utility
Pasajes populares
Página 150 - The case law sets forth four elements necessary to establish liability under the essential facilities doctrine: (1) control of the essential facility by a monopolist; (2) a competitor's inability practically or reasonably to duplicate the essential facility; (3) the denial of the use of the facility to a competitor; and (4) the feasibility of providing the facility.
Página 500 - the principle that a court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision, unless doing so would result in manifest injustice or there is statutory direction or legislative history to the contrary.
Página 485 - As used in this part, the terms — "(i) 'market dominance' refers to an absence of effective competition from other carriers or modes of transportation, for the traffic or movement to which a rate applies ; and "(ii) 'rate' means any rate or charge for the transportation of persons or property.
Página 626 - When a rail carrier, or a person controlled by or affiliated with a rail carrier, is an applicant and the transaction involves a motor carrier, the Commission may approve and authorize the transaction only if it finds that the...
Página 11 - The price of monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which can be got. The natural price, or the price of free competition, on the contrary, is the lowest which can be taken, not upon every occasion indeed, but for any considerable time together.
Página 396 - In determining whether a cancellation involving a rail carrier is consistent with the public interest, the Commission shall, to the extent applicable — (1) compare the distance traveled and the average transportation time and expense required using (A) the through route, and (B) alternative routes, between the places served by the through route; (2) consider any reduction in energy consumption that may result from cancellation; and (3) consider the overall impact of cancellation on the shippers...
Página 304 - Parties, to gather information from carriers and shippers about the problems and benefits arising from the Staggers Act and to provide a forum for direct discussion between shippers and carriers.
Página 483 - Either (i) a protesting shipper has used or would use the through route and/or joint rate proposed to be canceled to meet a significant portion of its current or future railroad transportation needs between the origin and destination...
Página 389 - ... contained shall be construed to entitle any person, firm, corporation, or association, except the United States, to bring suit in equity for injunctive relief against any common carrier subject to the provisions of the Act to regulate commerce, approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, in respect of any matter subject to the regulation, supervision, or other jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission.