FLOYD & BEASLEY TRANSFER CO., INC. v. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 647 (1967)
Subscribe to Cases that cite INC. v. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 647
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/385/647/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/385/647/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
FLOYD & BEASLEY TRANSFER CO., INC. v. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 647 (1967)
385 U.S. 647 FLOYD & BEASLEY TRANSFER CO., INC. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ALABAMA. No. 702.
Decided January 23, 1967.
256 F. Supp. 23, affirmed.
John W. Cooper for appellant.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert W. Ginnane and Fritz R. Kahn for the United States et al.; Guy H. Postell for Akers Motor Lines, Inc., et al.; and Harold Hernly, Robert E. Joyner and Ormond Somerville for Alabama Highway Express, Inc., et al., appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.
U.S. Supreme Court
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 385 U.S. 647 (1967)
385 U.S. 647 SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT. No. 797.
Decided January 23, 1967.
242 Cal. App. 2d 38, 51 Cal. Rptr. 197, appeal dismissed.
Randolph Karr and Alan L. Freedman for appellant.
Roger Arnebergh and Bourke Jones for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.