United States Lines, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Commission and United States of America, Hapag-Lloyd A. G., Intervenors

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that New York’s double jeopardy rules “do not affect the generic definition of the crime of bribery” and were merely “procedural rules governing prosecutions for all crimes in New York” and thus “irrelevant under RICO”
• explaining that the basis of an agency's decision must be disclosed, at the very latest, in the final decision to permit meaningful judicial review
• explaining that meaningful review is frustrated by an agency’s lack of disclosure where one cannot determine “what factors or data were in fact considered by the agency”
• explaining, at length, the Secretary's reasons for not attaching greater weight to the AFL-CIO's Beaconfire Report
• explaining, at length, the Secretary’s reasons for not attaching greater weight to the AFL-CIO’s Beaconfire Report
• remanding to agency because “[w]e simply cannot determine whether the final agency decision reflects the rational outcome of the agency’s considerations of all relevant factors when we have no idea what factors or data were in fact considered by the agency”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).