CHICAGO & EASTERN ILLINOIS RAILROAD CO.
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.

U.S. | 1953-01-12
No. 463
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, and Mr. Justice Reed are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set down for argument.
344 U.S. 917 Supreme Court of the United States (1953) Positive Treatment
Cited by 12 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:

Per Curiam:

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, and Mr. Justice Reed are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set down for argument.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Anderson v. Cooper, 17 Fla. Supp. 118 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1960)
    …way v. Union Bank, 204 F. 2d 603; In re Sollar Manufacturing Corp., 200 F. 2d 327, cert. den. sub. nom. Maine Midland Trust Co. v. McGirl, 345 U. S. 940, 97 L. Ed. 1366; In re Petroleum Conv. Corp., 99 Fed. Supp. 899, aff'd 196 F. 2d 728, cert. den. 344 U. S. 917, 97 L. Ed. 707; Columbia Foundry Co. v. Lochner, 179 F. 2d 630; Chase National Bank v. Lyford, 147 F. 2d 273; Florance v. Kresge, 93 F. 2d 784; cf. also Giffin v. Vought, 175 F. 2d 186; Gendel, Jurisdiction of a Referee in Bankruptcy to Render Affir…
  • Minneapolis & ST. Louis Ry. Co. v. United States, 361 U.S. 173 (U.S. 1959)
    …think, were compelled by the evidence. There can be no doubt that the Administrative Procedure Act applies to proceedings before the Commission, Riss & Co. v. United States, 341 U. S. 907, and see Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. Co. v. United States, 344 U. S. 917. The last sentence of § 8 (b) provides: “All [administrative] decisions . . . shall become a part of the record and include a statement of (1) findings and conclusions, as well as the reasons or basis therefor, upon all the material issues of fact…
  • Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sharples Chems., Inc., 209 F.2d 645 (6th Cir. 1954)
    …ason for each ruling with enough particularity to enable us to satisfactorily review it. N. L. R. B. v. State Center Warehouse & C. S. Co., 9 Cir., 193 F. 2d 156, 158; Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. United States, D.C., 107 F.Supp. 118, 125, affirmed 344 U.S. 917, 73 S.Ct. 346, 97 L.Ed. 707; Capital Transit Co. v. United States, D.C., 97 F.Supp. 614; Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Texas Mining & Smelting Co., 5 Cir., 117 F. 2d 86, 87. Section 10(b) of the Act, § 160(b), Title 29 U.S.C.A. provides that no complaint sh…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw