MAGNET COVE BARIUM CORP. v. UNITED STATES, 361 U.S. 32 (1959)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

MAGNET COVE BARIUM CORP. v. UNITED STATES, 361 U.S. 32 (1959)

361 U.S. 32

MAGNET COVE BARIUM CORP. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS. No. 296.
Decided October 19, 1959.

175 F. Supp. 473, affirmed.

Frank A. Leffingwell for appellant.

Solicitor General Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Bicks, Richard A. Solomon, Robert W. Ginnane and Francis A. Silver for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission, and Eldon Martin for the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. et al., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 361 U.S. 32, 33

 


U.S. Supreme Court

MAGNET COVE BARIUM CORP. v. UNITED STATES, 361 U.S. 32 (1959)

361 U.S. 32

MAGNET COVE BARIUM CORP. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS. No. 296.
Decided October 19, 1959.

175 F. Supp. 473, affirmed.

Frank A. Leffingwell for appellant.

Solicitor General Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Bicks, Richard A. Solomon, Robert W. Ginnane and Francis A. Silver for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission, and Eldon Martin for the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. et al., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 361 U.S. 32, 33

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.