INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

v.

ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FÉ RAILROAD COMPANY

Citator

Cited By

• Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Baird, 194 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1904)
• Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 162 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1896)
  …it Court of the United States for the District of California,, by the Commission eo nomine against that company, wherein it was held by this court that an appeal did not lie directly to this court since the creation of .the Circuit Court of Appeals. 149 U. S. 264. In neither of these cases was any objection made to the right of the Commission to sue by its statutory designation. We think that the language of the statute, in creating the •Commission, and in providing that it shall be lawful for - the Commis…
• Werthan Bag Corp. v. Agnew, 202 F.2d 119 (6th Cir. 1953)
  …idence is speculative, uncertain and contingent, and could not properly be made the basis of any recovery. Cited by appellant are the opinions in Sumlin v. Woodson, 1947, 211 Ark. 214, 199 S.W. 2d 936; Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Elliott, 149 U.S. 266, 13 S.Ct. 837, 37 L.Ed. 728; and Schwartz v. Eitel, 7 Cir., 132 F. 2d 760. The point is not significant, as the item amounted to only $500, and the jury awarded appellee $42,500 damages. The cases cited by appellant are distinguishable from that at bar. The cited…

Authorities Cited

• Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U.S. 47 (U.S. 1892)
• McLISH v. Roff, 141 U.S. 661 (U.S. 1891)
• Chicago & Nw. Ry. Co. v. Osborne, 146 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1892)
• Hubbard v. Soby, 146 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1892)