INTERSTATE INVESTORS, INC.

v.

UNITED STATES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 396 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1970)
  …5 (D. C. W. D. Va.), aff’d per curiam, 338 U. S. 902 (1949); Walker v. United States, 208 F. Supp. 388, 396 (D. C. W. D. Tex. 1962); Interstate Investors, Inc. v. United States, 287 F. Supp. 374, 392 n. 32 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1968), aff’d per curiam, 393 U. S. 479 (1969). And because a Commission order under § 5 (2) “is permissive, not mandatory,” New York Central Securities Corp. v. United States, 287 U. S. 12, 26-27 (1932), the approval of a merger proposal does not amount to an adjudication on any such que…
• Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & The United States, 669 F.2d 957 (5th Cir. 1982)
  …titors whose businesses are affected by Commission action as, for example, when new operating rights are granted or new service authorized. Interstate Investors, Inc. v. United States, 287 F.Supp. 374, 392 (S.D.N.Y.1968) (three-judge court), aff’d, 393 U.S. 479, 89 S.Ct. 707, 21 L.Ed.2d 687 (1969). See also Schwartz v. Alleghany Corp., 282 F.Supp. 161, 163 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) (three-judge court) (“If the orders are attacked as exceeding the power of the Commission, plaintiff may proceed here without having bee…
• Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & the United States, 673 F.2d 82 (5th Cir. 1982)
  …99 S.Ct. 733, 58 L.Ed.2d 712 (1978); Interstate Investors, Inc. v. United States, 287 F.Supp. 374, 392 (S.D.N.Y.1968) (three-judge court) (“The fact of intervention before the Commission is not enough by itself to establish standing .... ”), aff'd, 393 U.S. 479, 89 S.Ct. 707, 21 L.Ed.2d 687 (1969); 1 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 8.11, at 564 (1958). . See, e.g., Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973b, 1973c, 19731(b) (the District court for the District of Columbia has sole jurisdiction…