Gray Line Motor Tours, Inc., and Toye Bros. Airport Service, Inc. v. City of New Orleans

GOLDBERG, Before SIMPSON Judges. MORGAN, Circuit MORGAN, Judge. LEWIS R. Toye Brothers, Plaintiff-appellant, for years over 30 was the exclusive local ground passengers of air at the carrier Airport by New International Orleans agreement requir- virtue a franchise gross ing payment reve- of 10% guarantee. nues, minimum competitive bidding in- There no was obtaining Toye Brothers volved Toye original when franchise. expired, Brothers’ contract franchise an- Aviation Board New Orleans ground nounced in the future the carrier franchise would award- competitive ed on bid- the basis ding. Following bidding, such transportation franchise was awarded Transportation Service, the New Orleans Inc., prefer- who now has the benefit airport, parking at the ential and access being exempt addition to a 15% charge gross imposed receipts on Toye Brothers, non-franchised carriers. although carrier, non-franchised charge up pay to the refused the 15% proceedings. date of district court July 5, 1973, Toye On Brothers filed suit District the United States Court for the District Louisiana Eastern against Airport Board, Aviation others, alleging: (1) that various bur- imposed dens Brothers Airport Authority, such as restricted parking area and restricted access to terminal, constitutes interference with (2) commerce, interstate Ralph Kaskell, Jr., gross L. Eberhard P. Toye Brothers’ re- Deutsch, Seemann, Jr., F. Charles Fred- ceipts illegally passed under state was Alexius, Orleans, La., erick B. New Airport law and that it violates both plaintiff s-appellants. Development Acceleration Act of 1973 Constitution, Ar- States Maury Herman, Herman, A. Russ M. I, ticle 8.§ Orleans, La., New City Blake Arata, Atty., Orleans, La., proceed- New After extensive New ings, Orleans. defendants, Nеw Avia- Orleans summary Board, others, final and moved for a is not tion judgment favor of therefore not unless it con 12(c) of the Fed- tains a Rule certification.1 Coul the defendants under Sears, A hear- Procedure. ter Roebuck & Co. eral Rules of Civil ing 1189; September Campbell v. held on 411 F.2d portion (2nd Farm, ruled that the Westmoreland 1968), Inc. The district court 939; dismiss relat- Federal of defendants’ motion to ing 403 F.2d Moore’s allegations Toye Practice, .9, pp. [1], of bur- 112- to Brothers’ Vol 110.08 § finality not, interstate commerce and harass- dens on 113. The rule is granted exception. ment and thаt be considerations without Title 28 U.S.C. § legality 1292(a)(1) interlocutory for that court of the gross of or describes stayed right. appealable until the revenue be ders that are as of opportunity “Interlocutory state courts have had an states: orders of the dis legality granting, law. under state determine its trict . . courts . continu- dissolving modifying, refusing ing, or appealed that or- Brothers then refusing injunctions, or to dissolve or alleging: (1) Circuit, der to the Fifth injunctions, modify except where a di- partial in the lower dismissal may rect review had be error, (2) and court was ” Court; apрealable . . . are as of improper. order was right. contentions Before either these met, however, court is error can be partial summary judg Was this question of with the whether faced in ment tantamount to the denial an September 21, court’s order junction? not, find it We that was an order as is such therefore it did not fall under of the this court at this time. finality exceptions of the rule. This jurisdiction

court then has no to consid is er the raised as the first presented by plaintiffs. sue of Title of the Section alleged provides: plaintiffs The that be- United Code Statеs placed were cause various burdens Appeals juris- The shall have Courts of them, interference with interstate com- appeals from all final deci- diction merce occurred. The lower court’s of the sions of the district courts although plain- many of the held that except . where United . States passengers tiffs’ in interstate com- were a direct review be had the Su- allegation merce, plaintiffs’ raised issues preme Court. purely be local in nature which should judgment rule is the domi- This final Board and left to the Aviation appellate practice. rule in federal nant for resolution. the Louisiana state courts States, Di Bella v. United scope review very granting Appeals partial Generally, Courts exercisable dduring argu if the order en- 1. A was raise oral certification concerning the effect of the denial of tered the district falls under sec- ment plaintiffs’ 54(h) Injunctive request 1292(a)(1). are for a certification. tion orders injunctive scope involving An relief issued to be outside the of Rule considered judgment general 54(b). AVright Miller, prior Practice to the Federal appealed statutory ly Procedure, ex To hold be Vol. 2658. § application ception the final rule found otherwise would mean that Interlocutory provision Appeals 1292(a)(1). That of the Statute Section subject judge’s only Appeals gives discretion be to the district the Courts of involving certify interlocutory orders to enter an order and we to review perfect spirit junctions, appeal may contrary find to the but also Miller, AVright even the action statute. Federal Prac- ed under that statute when multiple parties. Procedure, 2962, p. tice аnd involves local claims or words, appellant need not obtain other Lynd (5th 1952), As was stated States 301 F.2d States limited. den., Corporation v. Fraternal Steel Associa cert. (3rd 9 L.Ed.2d 125. Steel Haulers 431 F.2d at 1048: injunctive fact sought being review is necessitated be- sufficient in and of This limited is not grant prelimi- bring issued dur or denial of itself a court order cause always ing nary injunction almost within the course of an action facts, interlocutory scope appeals set of stat based on an abbreviated requiring balancing example, ute. mary judgment sum a delicate For the denial fi- probabilities of ultimate success motion in an action seeking consequences appeala hearing with the relief is not nal injury denying injunction irreparable as is an order immediate ble possibly denial because the determination that has could flow Weighing genuine these been made is that there are is relief. responsibility of of material fact considerations is sues to be decided judge; only Cox, a clear abuse trial. v. the district Goldstein 90 justify appellate (1970); will S.Ct. ‍​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​‍24 L.Ed.2d of his discretion 663 Association, Inc. v. reversal. Switzerland Cheese Market, Inc., E. Horne’s U.S. 87 385 then, test, ac- is or not the whether (1966); Madry S.Ct. 17 L.Ed.2d 23 clearly er- of the district court was (5th 1971), Cir. F.2d 1329. Sorel 440 not be a denial find this roneous. We however, it But, has been held that injunction, of an rather the lower but grants where a district court a defend controlling it what issues court judg partial summary ant’s motion for trying specific in would have it a before ment which in effect a constitutes cause. No exists for this injunctive requested denial of the relief partial court to consider the dismissal. plaintiff, then such an order is supra. Bella, Di appealable. & Fitch Aberсrombie Co. Hunting (2nd World, 1972), Inc. Cir. II F.2d 1040. 461 The next before this court is concerning stay pend- Whether the order of the district whether the is, ing validity court comes under how- litigation involving the Considering ever, gross receipts not so clear. first the the 15% stay order, district few ex- court’s injunction and is there- amounts an ceptions, rejected the federal courts have appealable. fore staying the contention an order a court has Whether district appealable 1292(a)(1). under is relating in rendered a decision junction to an exception interlocutory an action in purposes One is for anof plaintiff injunctive always re- which the appeal seeks under statute is not injunction, including preliminary However, lief, easy a a to determine. district granted stay pending other liti- and a is review court not avoid immediate gation. appear by failing simply this cir- of its determination a cuit has held that such situation decision as one characterize or label its injunction stay denying granting injunctive as denial of an relief. acts a or 1292(a)(1). and is If, example, has the effect an action exception denying this requested without The cases which establish relief are, scope proce- actually making ruling, formal limited a posture. Furthermore, inclu- district to issue dural the refusal of the equiv present specific this case be treated as sion order will exception, broad- under this of a alent to denial McCoy junction appealable. exception do vi- en the even further and bewill against piecemeal policy re- of Education olence Louisiana State Board 915; See, Wright, (5th 1964), view, should be avoided. Cir. 332 Interlocutory Appeаls 1292(a)(1). ofAct Also involved Wirtz certification 23 F.R.D. judge aspect to another cited to sub The Fifth Circuit cases type simply case. This situation does exception are Jackson stantiate in the exist now case before Clarke, Brewing Company v. court. den., (5th 1962), cert. Cir. (1962), 891, 83 9 L.Ed.2d case, however, presents S.Ct. The Glen Oaks den., problems. Judge reh. additional There, Mississip (1962); Wirtz Jones stated: Corporation, pi F.2d Utilities, Publishers We are asked to whether determine (5th and Glen Oaks error was committed the district Houston, Inc. 1960). 280 F.2d 330 stay court in its order. Judge Jackson, Tuttle stated: reaсhed, But before that Though appellant perhaps cor- stay we consider whether order is brief, asserting, its appealable. rect If order is one which impossible literally grants to recon- “[i]t or denies everything written cile has been appeal taken 28 U.S.C. § subject by .1292, though the various Cir- even the order inter cuits,” has locutory the rule which we think final. Where emerged from the various decisions step procedural order is staying controlling thus: An order can be stated progress case is stay proceedings refusing in the to or appealаble. not v. Rich United States appealable under (5th District Court § 204 ardson (A) 1292(a)(1) in if the action stay be Where orders such as the one is an action which which, order was made proceed the in fore us have been issued ings law the fusion of which, before historically, fell into equity, by an action at actions, its nature category was of common law such sought law; stay (B) the regarded was equiva orders were as the prior permit determination lent of an order of a court equitable or counter- appeala defense some equity and wеre therefore claim [footnote omitted]. Baltimore v. Bodin ble. Contractors ger, 249, L. 348 U.S. S.Ct. [75 The Jackson court concluded might Ed. ... follow 233] meet this two- before them did not case prompt that the considerations which appeal- prong not test and therefore was ed the rule which the relaxation of of the case before able. An examination previously abstention to cas restricted that not its us demonstrates it was character, justi equitable es in would for that rea- at law and nature action fy the historical an elimination of tеst as stat- son fails come regard stay rule or technical See, ed in Baltimore Contrac- Jackson. legal in as ders in actions nature 176, Bodinger, S.Ct. tors v. regard junctive in them but did not so Morgantown 249, (1955); 99 L.Ed. 233 operation equitable The causes. Royal Company, 337 U.S. Insurance stay ac in the order is the same (1949). 254, 1067, 93 L.Ed. legal equitable in the as action appeala- The dealt with Wirtz case right appeal al should be and if a year bility of a one continuance for one, or denied in the same lowed Secretary pending action of Labor’s true in the other. should be violating enjoin defendants prayed Then complaint Dis- for a Fair Labor Act. in Standards The Oaks Glen Burger, Judge restraining temporary final order and a trict Columbia sought. sitting by designation, injunction. a held that con- relief was No other operates spe- order, year stay the court in this tinuance one practical Oaks, for all. effective denial of an said in was cific context as an Glen june- temporary in purposes injunction a denial of a is therefore exceptions in went on to One these in scribed. The court Glen Oаks tion. say subject appellate courts have made whether the freedom of dis appeal depends than on its effect rather some inroads parties Judge terminology. to anoth trict to refer the Jones courts its prop attributes deemed had such er forum is those cases found that the order appeal finality could be taken. er for federal abstention. the issue Court has indicated that when recent Fifth Circuit A more controversy requires the federal opinion to settle this seems on a a determination based make Mеrcury conclusively. Mo even more uninterpreted previously statute 1973) Express v. Brinke tor normally interpretation should Judge Thornberry held courts, subject to fi made the state district in a situation where high nal review court. Railroad injunctive re preliminary denied Co., v. Pullman Commissioner of Texas stayed fur the same order lief 85 L. at proceedings pending ther (1941). Pull Ed. 971 The author jurisdiction ICC, opinion, Frankfurter, man wrote Justice Mercury First, lie. the court decision, required “We have a 1959 it is clear that Motor stated merely Courts, sanc District 1292(a) (1) to lie under will U.S.C. discretionary tioned an power, of their exercise denying preliminary review an order stay proceedings pending their Thornberry Judge injunction. noted law the submission the state standing stay that is alone that a to state determination.” Louisiana independently of de considered Light Company City Thi Power & nying injunction preliminary bodaux, at but, appealable, noted in itself his Footnote order which Thus, in this court discretion denying ‍​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​‍the effect mainly consisting limited, situation is 1292(a) injunction (1) would come “exceptional the determination that the City jurisdiction. v. Glen Oaks Utilities prerequisite to circumstances” that are 1960), 280 Houston really exist. Meredith abstention we have be 330. That is the situation City Haven, 228, at 320 U.S. Winter have court then does fore us now. This jurisdiction (1943). 234, 7, L.Ed. 9 64 S.Ct. 88 stay to review the order the district court. doctrine allows The abstention scope jurisdiction has of the whose federal court What is postpone appellate deci court’s invoked to review of the lower been court, general stay rule, sion, pending if there in a state order? As a trial range might the result turn on issues state has been a broad discretion By yet disposition re unresolved. сourts to the law that are as quiring federal district litigate pro stay parties first of ceedings for a of their own motions practice pending render elsewhere. state courts unnecessary limit of the federal a decision not, is That discretion Moreover, stays questions presented. it in favor of less. In the area court, likely litigation in a pending in another friction federal-state lessen gen impor exceptions relationship, interference with there several are functions, and tentative deci court discretion. eral rule of broad trial tant Co., questions state law. The Su U. Kline Burke Construction sions (1922); preme repeatedly 79, declared 226, L.Ed. 226 Court has 43 S.Ct. S. Corp. Lyons Westinghouse involve the ab does not Electric that abstention den., jurisdiction, (2nd cert. but of federal dication See, postponement e. L.Ed. of its exercise. 737 the 350 U.S. England g., Board the freedom v. Louisiana State In each case Examiners, severely 411, circum- S. Medical of the court is choice (1964); validity determination of of the law Ct. question. 83 S. Button, NAACP (1963); Harrison 9 L.Ed.2d 405 Ct. part That of the district court’s NAACP, staying proceeding is in all re- below (1959). Thus, absеntion L.Ed.2d spects type of an elaborate viewed as can be stay Affirmed. justified assertion as an powers equitable consist of its the court requirements of federalism. (dissent- GOLDBERG, Judge ent with supra. Oaks,

Pullman, supra, Glen ing). court’s abstention the district Was opinion proper my on the Because appropriate to the means of a scope this case it was. find that it? We case before original appellate —both —differs majority’s view, significantly from the Plaintiffs-appellants contended concepts respectfully must dissent. charged gross receipts 15% nonappealability are and abstention illegal federal law. state and both appellants’ quarantine here combined judicial on the was based The state law claim However, the ma- movement. XIV, Constitution, Article Louisiana melding jority’s does of these doctrines approval by provides 31.6(B), stronger forge any than its a chain charges city all fees council of links; principle, neither individual passed Board. The the Aviation ac- properly applied, renders munic maintains that a of New Orleans complаined tions of in the district 4-12.2), ipal (828 ordinance M.C.S. § prius III nisi consid- immune to Article gives Board broad the Aviation appellate scruti- eration and thereafter authority contracts and con to execute ny. grants, “approval” constitutes cession pursuant to the State Constitution. ap correctly majority displaced adjudica by tomorrow state gross receipts charge on the use of 15% reign of is tion. . . . The law op had an have “until the state courts portunity unnecessary hardly promoted rul- if an legality to determine its ing supplanted of a federal court is thus My reach do not brothers state law.” by controlling decision of a state dispos the court the action district of court.” operational ing appellants’ of of claim finding “partial” interference, then that the it to be There is no unaccompanied judgment federal district court could ex- mind, my how- ercise its discretion to await final state To court certification.1 express delay upon 54(b) an direction 1. Rule of the Federal of and Rules Civil entry judgment. provides part In the absence of Procedure relevаnt that: for the any direction, determination When more than one claim for presented is of such decision, however of . . . the order or other form action adjudicates designated, entry judgment than fewer which direct the a final shall not termi- . . . as to one or fewer all of all the claims more but than any upon express only the claims as to the . . nate the action claims just form or other and the order determination that there is no reason argument subject Appellees’ ever, ruling this to review that that unappealable part of not as one final hence its Court on merits this respects is not final. 28 U.S.C. in all §§ that was an order parallel state well taken. No actions course, but is, no There pending was no were there pleadings en judgment the on adjudication There was to await. complete represents a deter tered below nothing in federal court be- to be done the on district court the mination in- the there had all cause Hence, claim. harassment merits of the Appel- purposes tents and concluded. appellants raised issue had effectively оut of court— lant was July 5, 1973, the complaint of their Voyage Liquor Corp. Ro Idlewild Bon the judgment 426, 428, han, mod 2 Cir. Consequent 1291.2 terms of U.S.C. § grounds nom., Idle ified on other sub that, the ly, majority’s conclusion the Corp. Liquor Epstein, Voyage wild Bon F.R.C.P., the language Rule pra. consideration In its own su “adjudicates September fewer 21 order merits, Supreme explic Court claims,” be must rest on its than all the itly approved holding, noting that proceedings federal lief that Appeals properly reject Court of “[t]he charge use did amount argument ed the the order of the claim for the final on that determination District Court [was final].” purposes appeal. On basis U.S. at 715 at 1296. Idle- n. opinion in Bon Idlewild Court’s gleaned teaching, wild’s both courts Voyage Liquor Corp. Epstein, commentators, us instructs L.Ed.2d case,3 where, present as in the no state clear however it seems pending court action at time of a bells indeed tolled for had Brothers abstain, court’s determination standing stay, point on this and that the abstention order decision alone, fi would also have constituted a appealable under 28 Dru U.S.C. § 1291. appeal nal from which dеcision Sullivan, ker 1 Cir. right. lie as of 1272; 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ Idlewild, plaintiff brought In suit 110.20 at 251. [4.2] challenging aspects of certain New single We are faced here with a Beverage York Alcoholic Control Law disposes of two claims in differ- Commerce, Import-Ex- violative ways. ent Either method taken in isola- port, Supremacy Clauses subject tion amounts to a final decision Constitution. The district States appellate scrutiny time. stayed the federal action in order nothing logic know of in law or give op- to portunity New York state courts an any would make the whole less aspects to rule on certain parts. than sum of its litigation. response to the State’s ap- attack on its hear the My appealability brothers’ on the view peal, judgment held that: Second makes subject gross receipts; to revision at time decision and both adjudicating by appellees August before the the answer filed September all the claims .... 1973 and the 21 memorandum of pro- the district court indicate that no such appeals jurisdic- 2. The shall courts of have ceeding prior had been to instituted the оr- appeals from all of of decisions only proceed- der. reference to a state the of the courts United States ing concerning charge the use comes in the may except where a direct review briefs, appellees where state that on Decem- be in the Court. 21, 1973, ber three months the absten- after 1291. § U.S.C. ‍​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​‍entered, City tion order was the of New Or- alleged 3. There is no reference the record to leans filed suit to collect sums as due legality appellants’ airport operations. state the the from court action over of that of merits of only discussion the issues extended of federal law under certain premature.4 ruling my part “special I cannot on circumstances.” Lake Carriers’ commenting, however, that MacMullan, 1972, Association v. forbear given 406 U.S. stringent requirements 510, 498, 1749, the 92 S.Ct. 32 L.Ed.2d 257. granting Hence, the nec and such a dismissal5 where resolution of a difficult litigation the ac essary this on and focus of unsettled vitally of state issue law affecting ap impact city’s policies on pre- an area tual of local concern is greater inquiry liminary pellants’ operations, into to consideration of a hearing through perplexing on the ques- the facts—as federal constitutional tion, the course. and better where merits—seems authoritative construc- may tion of state the statute well elim- regard portion or With to that need inate the for or limit the constitu- merits, der on its I am unable reviewed tional issues. agree teaching to that of the Railroad Co., Commission proper Pullman Texas abstention in order to 496, 1941, 643, unnecessary 312 U.S. 61 S.Ct. 85 L. avoid friction in federal- 971, properly applied the relаtions, Ed. dis state with im- interference staying portant trict court functions, consideration state tentative deci- charge. questions the concur law, cannot sions of state and 15% premature adjudication. conclusion that the merits of contro this constitutional versy are too for the federal delicate Forssenius, 1965, Harman v. 380 U.S. touch and that abstention is therefore 528, 534, 1177, 1182, L.Ed.2d compelled. wise and courts Just as state 50. open competent are assumed present true that in the case the adjudicate questions law federal of state law—whether issue Younger them, before see cases charge properly imposed can be 746, 1971, 37, Harris, 91 S.Ct. U.S. pursuant Aviation Board to blanket 669, pen so L.Ed.2d the doctrine approval never been direct- Council —has jurisdiction, dent Mine see United Louisiana; ly addressed the courts 1966, Gibbs, of America Workers but the mere absence state of definitive 218; 1130, U.S. 86 S.Ct. 16 L.Ed.2d judicial construction does not automati- diversity grant, III see Article Erie cally trigger abstention, Hodge, Doud v. Tompkins, 1938, Railroad 64, Co. 485, 487, 76 S.Ct. 82 L.Ed. perceptible com- 577. 100 L.Ed. Neither myriad litigation question plexities provisions in the state volving rights relationships created possibly here nor serious consideration presuppose ability of the states implications of in the over- decision apply interpret federal courts to governing Louisiana scheme for all progeny Pullman do and its law. airport surfaced New Orleans have general commingling dispute not judicial timidity justify the court below. they upon authority; call rather Moreover, a determination state court propriety federal court not received has determining matters of state law approval by proceeding adequate the New the wisdom of Orleans related Conversely, my finality claim, 4. own harassment view September sought. order makes it unneces- was also sary for me to reach the of wheth- be dismissed on A claim operated er the also as the denial “beyond appears doubt where it injunction. confess, of a I must prove plaintiff of facts no set can majority reading support him entitle his claim perplexed opinion considerably has left me Gibson, 1957, Conley relief.” point. arguments All ad- 45-46, 2 L.Ed.2d 80. support Corр. or- vanced review of v. Conti Motors also Continental See Corp., seem der under 28 U.S.C. Aviation 5 Cir. nental applicable equally dismissal of 857. bring only would doubtless Council temporary the controver- alleviation America, UNITED STATES city given sy, insistence Plaintiff-Appellee, Appellants face the fee. collection expense delay prospect of “the Guadalupe RODRIGUEZ, Lo- Victoriano application the abstention to which Vega, zano Rolando Rene Garcia and England gives rise,” inevitably doctrine Tamez, Defendants-Apрellants. Castillo Examiners, Medical U.S. No. 73-2008. 440, only 461, 466, 11 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Appeals, United States Court of the state road at the end of to be met Fifth Circuit. the Board’s au- affirmance Aug. 1974. city thority adoption or formal already it has endorsed. what inquiry the federal shifts to When questions, the cause of abstention materially examina- advanced Appel- issues thus avoided.

tion challenge gross receipts lants Develop- Airport violative both the as and the

ment Acceleration Act of 1973 Though involving Clause.

Commerce principle of constitutional federal argument

supremacy, ex- former

clusively statutory construc- issue of ; explic- and the has Court

itly rejected the Pullman doctrine ‍​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​‍as a interpretation postponing

method of statutes, Propper Clark, federal U.S. 93 L.Ed. 1480. Nor this Circuit’s has

prior approach airport attacks charges unduly burdensome inter- chal-

state commerce lenges that such indicated pose ques- difficult constitutional

tions. See Brothers Yellow Cab

Company Irby, 5 Cir. provide

806, 811. Pullman does delaying means decision whenever a

case raises related questions. state and purpose

Its is to avoid untu- complex

tored federal interference permit- regulatory schemes, while

ting the resolution of controversies

without resort to “substantial constitu- [touching]

tional issue . . [s] policy upon sensitive of social area[s] ought federal courts not to enter unless no alternative to ad- [their]

judication open.” Commis- Railroad Co., supra,

sion of Texas Pullman applica-

at 61 S.Ct. at Its

tion to this case serves neither interest. notes specific ap Plaintiffs maintain separate, pellants’ complaint two stated necessary. proval though related, In its of action. causes has never This issue of state law been September 21, the district order of upon passed courts and ob the Lousiana granted judgment on the viously may dispositive ‍​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​‍of the issues 12(c) pursuant F.R.C.P. to Rule Pullman, su at hand. As was stated po by airport and claim of harassment pra, “In this situation a federal court to constitute officials so severe as lice equity asked to decide an issue commerce, and on interstate burden making a tentative answer which permissibility stayed proceedings on the

Case Details

Case Name: Gray Line Motor Tours, Inc., and Toye Bros. Airport Service, Inc. v. City of New Orleans

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 5, 1974

Citation: 498 F.2d 293

Docket Number: 73-3791

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.