CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY CO. ET AL.

v.

ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. ET AL.; AND UNITED STATES ET AL. V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. ET AL.

U.S. | 1966-04-04

Nos. 159; No. 576

383 U.S. 964 Supreme Court of the United States (1966) Positive Treatment

Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and consolidated two cases arising from a federal District Court decision regarding disputes between competing railroad companies and the United States over matters involving railway operations and regulation. The Court scheduled three hours of oral argument to address the underlying legal issues in controversy.

Opinion of the Court

Appeals from D. C. S. D. Cal. Probable jurisdiction noted. The cases are consolidated and a total of three hours is allotted for oral argument.

Nuel D. Belnap, Richard M. Freeman, Bryce L. Hamilton, Raymond K. Merrill, Nye F. More-house, John W. Adams, Martin L. Cassell arid Frank R. Johnston for appellants in No.

159. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Robert B. Hummel, Jerry Z. Pruzansky, Robert W. Ginnane and Arthur J. Cerra for the United States et al. in No.

576. Douglas F. Smith, Howard J. Trienens, George L. Saunders, Jr., John E. McCullough, S.

R. Brittingham, Jr., Monroe E. Clinton, Frank S. Farrell, Lawrence W. Hobbs, L.

E. Torinus, Jr., and E.

L. Van Dellen for Atchi-son, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al., and E.

P. Porter, Alan C. Furth, Charles W. Burkett, Robert L. Pierce and Thormund A. Miller for Southern Pacific Co. et al., appellees in both cases. Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General of Oregon, Lloyd G. Hammel and Richard W. Sabin, Assistant Attorneys General, John J. O’Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and Frank P. Hayes, Assistant Attorney General, for Regulatory Commissions of the State of Arizona et al., and Mary Moran Pajalich and J. Thomason Phelps for the State of California et al., intervening plaintiffs-appellees in both cases.

Reported below: 238 F. Supp. 528.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Schack v. State, 201 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)

…2; Schack v. Florida, 1966, 382 U.S. 1016, 86 S.Ct. 629, 15 L.Ed.2d 530; Schack v. Simpson, Judge, 1966, 383 U.S. 904, 86 S.Ct. 916, 15 L.Ed.2d 678; Schack v. Roberts, Clerk, 1966, 383 U.S. 904, 86 S.Ct. 921, 15 L.Ed.2d 678; Schack v. Florida, 1966, 383 U.S. 964, 86 S.Ct. 1283, 16 L.Ed.2d 312; Schack v. Bogart, Clerk, 1966, 384 U.S. 984, 86 S.Ct. 1892, 16 L.Ed. 2d 1011. During the October term 1966 the defendant has filed nine petitions for relief in the Supreme Court of the United States. Schack v. Florid…
Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Atchison, 387 U.S. 326 (U.S. 1967)

…ed new divisions which, on the average, gave the Midwestern carriers a greater share of the joint rates.2 The District Court set aside the Commission’s order on the ground that certain of its findings were deficient.3 We noted probable jurisdiction, 383 U. S. 964, to consider important questions regarding the Commission’s powers and procedures raised by the District Court’s decision. I. There were originally three groups of railroads involved in the proceedings before the Commission: the Eastern, Midwester…
United States v. Atchison, 384 U.S. 888 (U.S. 1966)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw

CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY CO. ET AL. v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. ET AL.; AND UNITED STATES ET AL. V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. ET AL.