FRANK ADAMS & CO. v. UNITED STATES, 375 U.S. 215 (1963)

U.S. Supreme Court

FRANK ADAMS & CO. v. UNITED STATES, 375 U.S. 215 (1963)

375 U.S. 215

FRANK ADAMS & CO. ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO. No. 506.
Decided December 9, 1963.

Affirmed.

Howard Gould for appellants.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Robert B. Hummel, Irwin A. Seibel, Robert W. Ginnane and H. Neil Garson for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission.

F.B. Henderson, Richard J. Murphy, Kemper A. Dobbins, R.B. Claytor and Robert H. Bierma for appellee rail carriers.

PER CURIAM.

The motion of Henry B. Street for leave to withdraw his appearance as counsel for the appellants is granted. The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Page 375 U.S. 215, 216




U.S. Supreme Court

FRANK ADAMS & CO. v. UNITED STATES, 375 U.S. 215 (1963)

375 U.S. 215

FRANK ADAMS & CO. ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO. No. 506.
Decided December 9, 1963.

Affirmed.

Howard Gould for appellants.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Robert B. Hummel, Irwin A. Seibel, Robert W. Ginnane and H. Neil Garson for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission.

F.B. Henderson, Richard J. Murphy, Kemper A. Dobbins, R.B. Claytor and Robert H. Bierma for appellee rail carriers.

PER CURIAM.

The motion of Henry B. Street for leave to withdraw his appearance as counsel for the appellants is granted. The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Page 375 U.S. 215, 216

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.