Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Federal Maritime Commission v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., Et Al.

• 1972 • 411 U.S. 726 • Burger Court
In the 1972 case Federal Maritime Commission v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Seatrain Lines, a shipping company that had been accused by the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) of violating the Shipping Act. The FMC claimed that Seatrain was unlawfully charging different rates for transporting similar goods and providing preferential treatment to certain customers. However, upon review, it was found that these practices were not discriminatory as they did not...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1972
Docket: 71-1647
411 U.S. 726
93 S. Ct. 1773
36 L. Ed. 2d 620
1973 U.S. LEXIS 127
Argued: Mar 21, 1973

Federal Maritime Commission v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1972 case Federal Maritime Commission v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Seatrain Lines, a shipping company that had been accused by the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) of violating the Shipping Act. The FMC claimed that Seatrain was unlawfully charging different rates for transporting similar goods and providing preferential treatment to certain customers. However, upon review, it was found that these practices were not discriminatory as they did not result in any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage nor did they subject any particular person to any unjust prejudice or disadvantage. Therefore, it was concluded that there had been no violation of Section 16 First of the Shipping Act which prohibits such actions.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the Federal Maritime Commission v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., case argued that the majority's decision to allow Seatrain to operate its terminal facilities exclusively was incorrect and not supported by law or policy. The dissenters believed that this ruling contradicted the Shipping Act of 1916, which aimed at preventing discrimination and promoting fair competition among shipping companies. They also pointed out that allowing such exclusivity would lead to a monopoly situation where one company controls all aspects of a particular service, thus stifering competition and potentially leading to higher prices for consumers. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "just and reasonable" regulations under Section 17 of the Act; arguing instead for an understanding more aligned with public interest considerations rather than private business interests.

Opinion written by Justice TMarshall
Decided: May 14, 1973
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms