BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES ET AL.
UNITED STATES ET AL.
375 U.S. 216
Supreme Court of the United States (1963)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 11 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. United States, 386 U.S. 372 (U.S. 1967)…ystem is the result-of a control proceeding in 1962. See Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.—Control—Baltimore & O. R. Co., 317 I. C. C. 261, sustained, sub nom, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. United States, 221 F. Supp. 19, aff'd, per curiam, 375 U. S. 216 (1963). Together these two roads operate some 10,000 miles of railroad. Their lines extend from Michigan through Ohio and West Virginia to Virginia and from Chicago, Ill., and St. Louis, Mo., to Rochester, N. Y., and Washington, D. C. Their net ope…1 / 4
-
S. Pac. Transp. Co. & St. Louis Sw. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States, 736 F.2d 708 (D.C. Cir. 1984)…of the public interest — that is the Commission’s job. Penn Central Merger Cases, 389 U.S. 486, 498-99, 88 S.Ct. 602, 608-09, 19 L.Ed.2d 723 (1968); Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. United States, 221 F.Supp. 19, 30 (E.D.Mich.), aff'd, 375 U.S. 216, 84 S.Ct. 341, 11 L.Ed.2d 270 (1963). The record clearly shows that the ICC exercised its independent judgment and expertise with respect to the calculation of public benefits. That must be enough for us, particularly in such a fact-bound and techn…
-
The Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. & the Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. The United States & The Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 571 F.2d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 1977)…ads as required by section 5(2)(f).16 221 F.Supp. at 28. The District Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on August 13, 1963, and the Supreme Court on direct appeal affirmed per curiam. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. United States, 375 U.S. 216, 84 S.Ct 341, 11 L.Ed.2d 270 (1963). In fact, the unions never attacked the protective provisions of the ICC order in this case until March 22, 1974 when the “United Transportation Union (UTU) filed with the Commission ... to reopen the C & O-B & 0…1 / 3