CHARLES WEST, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,

v.

THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL.; CHARLES WEST, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. GULF, COLORADO & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL.; CHARLES WEST, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. THE MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY; CHARLES WEST, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. MIDLAND VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY; CHARLES WEST, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; CHARLES WEST, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; CHARLES WEST, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY

Citator

Cited By

• Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981)
  …our caselaw. Indeed, some of this court’s early decisions were couched in [*114] terms other than probability. In Love v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 185 F. 321, 331-32 (8th Cir.) (Sanborn, J.), cert. denied sub nom. West v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 220 U.S. 618, 31 S.Ct. 721, 55 L.Ed. 612 (1911), Judge Sanborn stated the issue as whether “questions presented in a suit for an injunction are grave and difficult....” Id. at 331. Accord, Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. v. Chicago Great Western R. R., 190 F. 2d 361, 363…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Miss Universe, Inc. v. Flesher, 605 F.2d 1130 (9th Cir. 1979)
  …that the law intrusted the granting or refusing of these injunctions, and the only question here is: Does the proof clearly establish an abuse of that discretion?” Love v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 185 F. 321, 331 (8th Cir. 1911), cert. denied, 220 U.S. 618, 31 S.Ct. 721, 55 L.Ed. 612, quoted with approval in Burton v. Matanuska Valley Lines, 244 F. 2d 647, 651 (9th Cir. 1957), and William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 526 F. 2d 86, 88 (9th Cir. 1975). . For instance, the inj…
• Missouri Rate Cases, 230 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1913)