HIGHWAY EXPRESS LINES v. JONES, 377 U.S. 217 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court
HIGHWAY EXPRESS LINES v. JONES, 377 U.S. 217 (1964) 377 U.S. 217HIGHWAY EXPRESS LINES, INC., ET AL. v.
JONES MOTOR CO., INC.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 900.
Decided May 18, 1964.*
218 F. Supp. 133; 223 F. Supp. 835, affirmed.
[Footnote *] Together with No. 977, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Jones Motor Co., Inc., also on appeal from the same court.
Robert H. Young and William E. Zeiter for appellants in No. 900.
William A. Goichman, Edward Munce and Joseph C. Bruno for appellant in No. 977.
Roland Rice and Christian V. Graf for appellee.
Solicitor General Cox and Robert W. Ginnane filed a memorandum for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission in both cases.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
U.S. Supreme Court
HIGHWAY EXPRESS LINES v. JONES, 377 U.S. 217 (1964) 377 U.S. 217 HIGHWAY EXPRESS LINES, INC., ET AL. v. JONES MOTOR CO., INC.APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 900.
Decided May 18, 1964.*
218 F. Supp. 133; 223 F. Supp. 835, affirmed. [Footnote *] Together with No. 977, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Jones Motor Co., Inc., also on appeal from the same court. Robert H. Young and William E. Zeiter for appellants in No. 900. William A. Goichman, Edward Munce and Joseph C. Bruno for appellant in No. 977. Roland Rice and Christian V. Graf for appellee. Solicitor General Cox and Robert W. Ginnane filed a memorandum for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission in both cases. PER CURIAM. The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Page 377 U.S. 217, 218
