AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 382 U.S. 372 (1966)
Subscribe to Cases that cite INC. v. UNITED STATES, 382 U.S. 372
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/382/372/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/382/372/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 382 U.S. 372 (1966)
382 U.S. 372 AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA. No. 510.
Decided January 17, 1966.*
[Footnote *] Together with No. 511, Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. United States et al., also on appeal from the same court.
242 F. Supp. 890, affirmed.
Peter T. Beardsley, Richard R. Sigmon, Bryce Rea, Jr., and Ralph C. Busser, Jr., for appellants in No. 510. Carl Helmetag, Jr., for appellant in No. 511.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Lionel Kestenbaum and Robert W. Ginnane for the United States et al. John F. Donelan and John M. Cleary for National Industrial Traffic League, appellee in both cases. Joseph E. Keller and W. H. Borghesani, Jr., for South Paterson Trucking Co., Inc., et al.; and William A. Goichman and Joseph C. Bruno for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, appellees in No. 511.
PER CURIAM.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.