STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF KANSAS ET AL.

v.

ARROW TRANSPORTATION CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Arrow Transp. Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 372 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1963)
  …te Commerce Act. Schaffer Transportation Co. v. United States, 355 U. S. 83, 87-88; Arrow Transportation Co. v. United States, 176 F. Supp. 411, 416 (D. C. N. D. Ala.), aff’d per curiam sub nom. State Corporation Comm’n v. Arrow Transportation Co., 361 U. S. 353.…
• State OF NEW York v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 568 F.2d 887 (2d Cir. 1977)
  …a Fe Ry. v. United States, 194 F.Supp. 438 (D.Kan.1961) (three-judge court); Arrow Transportation Co. v. United States, 176 F.Supp. 411, 419 (N.D.Ala.1959) (three-judge court), aff'd sub nom. State Corporation Commission v. Arrow Transportation Co., 361 U.S. 353 (1960) (per curiam).16 [*896] (B) Meaning of “Connecting Line” The Commission ruled that, even if protestants were entitled to the protection of § 3(4), there would be no merit to their argument. The Commission went on to state, “Section 3(4) is de…
• State OF NEW York v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 600 F.2d 349 (2d Cir. 1979)
  …yardstick for measuring discrimination is “the compensation received by the outbound rail carrier on ex-rail traffic from the same port to the same destination.” Arrow Transportation Co. v. United States, 176 F.Supp. 411, 419 (N.D.Ala.1959), aff’d, 361 U.S. 353, 80 S.Ct. 406, 4 L.Ed.2d 362 (1960). The Commission was satisfied in this case that, where comparable conditions between lake and rail carriers existed, equal rate treatment was available and that, accordingly, there was no violation of section 3(4)…