GILLIAM

v.

MICHIGAN; AND JAMES V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Cores, 356 U.S. 405 (U.S. 1958)
  …d where the prosecution was begun, the District Court dismissed the criminal information, holding that a violation of § 252 (c) was not a continuing crime. The Government brought direct appeal, 18 U. S. C. § 3731, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 355 U. S. 866 (1957). Since we conclude that the District Court was in error, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The information, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, charged that appe…
• Cnty. OF Marin v. United States, 356 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1958)
  …rder, held that the Commission had jurisdiction under § 5 (2) (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act.3 150 F. Supp. 619. In view of the importance of the jurisdictional question and its impact on federal-state relations, we noted probable jurisdiction. 355 U. S. 866 (1957). We conclude that the proposed transaction is beyond the scope of Commission power under § 5 (2) (a).4 At the time of the application, Pacific Greyhound was a motor common carrier of passengers in seven western and southwestern States under…