NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 342 U. S. 882 (1951)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 342 U. S. 882
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/342/882/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/342/882/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
New York v. United States, 342 U.S. 882 (1951)
New York v. United States
No. 346
Nov. 26, 1951
Statement of Jurisdiction Distributed Oct. 26, 1951
Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1952
342 U.S. 882
See 342 U.S. 911.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to affirm is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.
The Interstate Commerce Commission has ordered intrastate commuters' fares of the New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company increased in New York to the level of interstate commuters' fares. The Commission found that the transportation conditions surrounding intrastate trains were substantially similar to those surrounding interstate trains. Interstate fares were determined to be reasonable. But present intrastate fares were found not to be producing a reasonable return on investment. The Commission concluded that persons and localities in interstate commerce, and interstate commerce, were being unduly discriminated against. Pursuant to § 13(4) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 13(4), it ordered intrastate fares raised to the level of interstate fares to remove the discrimination. A three-judge district court affirmed the order of the Commission as to the finding of discrimination against interstate commerce, but did not pass on the finding of discrimination against persons and localities in interstate commerce. 98 F.Supp. 855.