ARKANSAS & LOUISIANA MISSOURI RAILWAY CO. ET AL.

v.

AMARILLO-BORGER EXPRESS, INC., ET AL.; AND UNITED STATES ET AL. V. AMARILLO-BORGER EXPRESS, INC., ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (31 total)

• Arrow Transp. Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 372 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1963)
  …S. S. Corp. v. United States, 182 F. Supp. 63 (D. C. N. D. Ohio); Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. United States, 179 F. Supp. 605 (D. C. D. Del.). But cf. Amarillo-Borger Express, Inc., v. United States, 138 F. Supp. 411 (D. C. N. D. Tex.), vacated as moot, 352 U. S. 1028; Seatrain Lines, Inc., v. United States, 168 F. Supp. 819 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.). Compare generally Goodman, The History and [*671] Scope of Federal Power to Delay Changes in Transportation Rates, 27 I. C. C. Prac. J. 245 (1959), with Brooks and Daily,…
• Municipal Light Boards of Reading and Wakefield Massachusetts v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 450 F.2d 1341 (D.C. Cir. 1971)
  …se of that discretion is in no sense invulnerable to judicial review.” They rely on the line of cases springing from Amarillo-Borger Express, Inc. v. United States, 138 F. Supp. 411 (N.D.Tex.1956) (three-judge court), vacated as moot, 352 U.S. 1028, 77 S.Ct. 594, 1 L.Ed.2d 598 (1957).19 These cases, all preceding Arrow Transportation, involve the special situation of an order vacating a prior suspension, where the initial order was accompanied by statutorily prescribed reasons but the latter order contains…
• Luckenbach S.S. Co., Inc. v. United States, 364 U.S. 280 (U.S. 1960)
  …t for the District of Delaware, so far as it relates to the suspension of rates phase of the dispute, is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the cause as moot. United States v. Amarillo-Borger Express, 352 U. S. 1028; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Dixie Carriers, 355 U. S. 179. With respect to the antitrust phase of the dispute, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent on the holding of Georgia v. Pennsy…