BALTIMORE & OHIO CHICAGO TERMINAL RAILROAD CO. ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Middlewest Motor Freight Bureau v. United States, 433 F.2d 212 (8th Cir. 1970)
  …1) (emphasis added). See also Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 263 F.Supp. 552 (D.Colo.1967), app. dis., 389 U.S. 576, 88 S.Ct. 689, 19 L.Ed.2d 775 (1968); Baltimore & O. C. T. R. Co., v. United States, 279 F.Supp. 270 (N.D.Ill.), aff’d, 389 U.S. 88, 88 S.Ct. 253, 19 L.Ed.2d 255 (1967). Due to the technicality of the concepts involved, as well as the distinct possibility of future misinterpretation of the import of this decision, it seems necessary here to expressly limit the sense in which we…
• Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 F.2d 138 (8th Cir. 1968)
• Ind. Harbor Belt R.R. Co. v. Gen. Am. Transp. Corp., 577 F.2d 394 (7th Cir. 1978)
  …all other carriers using such equipment. This conclusion was affirmed by a three-judge district court in The Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad Company v. United States, 279 F.Supp. 270 (N.D., Ill. 1967) and ultimately by the Supreme Court (389 U.S. 88 (1967)). The Commission also concluded that IHB derives substantial benefits, both direct and indirect, from the loaded movements of private cars over its line, that such cars constitute instrumentalities of transportation essential to the fulfillm…