AUCLAIR TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 376 U.S. 514 (1964)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

AUCLAIR TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 376 U.S. 514 (1964)

376 U.S. 514

AUCLAIR TRANSPORTATION, INC., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MASSACHUSETTS. No. 724.
Decided March 23, 1964.

221 F. Supp. 328, affirmed.

Peter T. Beardsley and Richard R. Sigmon for appellants.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Lionel Kestenbaum, Robert W. Ginnane and H. Neil Garson for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission; and William J. Taylor for Railway Express Agency, Inc., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 376 U.S. 514, 515




U.S. Supreme Court

AUCLAIR TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 376 U.S. 514 (1964)

376 U.S. 514

AUCLAIR TRANSPORTATION, INC., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MASSACHUSETTS. No. 724.
Decided March 23, 1964.

221 F. Supp. 328, affirmed.

Peter T. Beardsley and Richard R. Sigmon for appellants.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Lionel Kestenbaum, Robert W. Ginnane and H. Neil Garson for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission; and William J. Taylor for Railway Express Agency, Inc., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 376 U.S. 514, 515

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.