NEW JERSEY v. UNITED STATES, 359 U.S. 27 (1959)

U.S. Supreme Court

NEW JERSEY v. UNITED STATES, 359 U.S. 27 (1959)

359 U.S. 27

NEW JERSEY ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW
JERSEY. No. 621.
Decided March 2, 1959.*

168 F. Supp. 324, affirmed.

[Footnote *] Together with No. 622, County of Bergen et al. v. United States et al., on appeal from the same court.

David D. Furman, Attorney General of New Jersey, for appellants in No. 621.

Milton T. Lasher, William A. Roberts, Irene Kennedy and Maxwell A. Howell for appellants in No. 622.

Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen and Robert W. Ginnane for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission, and Thomas E. Dewey and Gerald E. Dwyer for the New York Central Railroad Co., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Page 359 U.S. 27, 28




U.S. Supreme Court

NEW JERSEY v. UNITED STATES, 359 U.S. 27 (1959)

359 U.S. 27

NEW JERSEY ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW
JERSEY. No. 621.
Decided March 2, 1959.*

168 F. Supp. 324, affirmed.

[Footnote *] Together with No. 622, County of Bergen et al. v. United States et al., on appeal from the same court.

David D. Furman, Attorney General of New Jersey, for appellants in No. 621.

Milton T. Lasher, William A. Roberts, Irene Kennedy and Maxwell A. Howell for appellants in No. 622.

Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen and Robert W. Ginnane for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission, and Thomas E. Dewey and Gerald E. Dwyer for the New York Central Railroad Co., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Page 359 U.S. 27, 28

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.