CHICAGO v. UNITED STATES, 380 U.S. 373 (1965)

U.S. Supreme Court

CHICAGO v. UNITED STATES, 380 U.S. 373 (1965)

380 U.S. 373

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

MISSOURI.

No. 770.
Decided March 29, 1965.

233 F. Supp. 381, affirmed.

M. L. Cassell and Don McDevitt for appellants.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Robert B. Hummel, Donald L. Hardison, Robert W. Ginnane and Fritz R. Kahn for the United States et al. Alexander B. Hawes for Waterways Bulk Transportation Council, Inc.; Nuel D. Belnap for Federal Barge Lines, Inc., et al.; Charles J. McCarthy for Tennessee Valley Authority; Donald Macleay for Arrow Transportation Co.; and John C. Lovett for Farmers Union Grain Terminal Association et al.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 380 U.S. 373, 374

 


U.S. Supreme Court

CHICAGO v. UNITED STATES, 380 U.S. 373 (1965)

380 U.S. 373

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

MISSOURI.

No. 770.
Decided March 29, 1965.

233 F. Supp. 381, affirmed.

M. L. Cassell and Don McDevitt for appellants.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Robert B. Hummel, Donald L. Hardison, Robert W. Ginnane and Fritz R. Kahn for the United States et al. Alexander B. Hawes for Waterways Bulk Transportation Council, Inc.; Nuel D. Belnap for Federal Barge Lines, Inc., et al.; Charles J. McCarthy for Tennessee Valley Authority; Donald Macleay for Arrow Transportation Co.; and John C. Lovett for Farmers Union Grain Terminal Association et al.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 380 U.S. 373, 374

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.