CHICAGO & N.W. R.W. v. CHICAGO MIL. ST. PAUL & PAC. R., 380 U.S. 448 (1965)

U.S. Supreme Court

CHICAGO & N.W. R.W. v. CHICAGO MIL. ST. PAUL & PAC. R., 380 U.S. 448 (1965)

380 U.S. 448

CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY CO. v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL &
PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

WISCONSIN.

No. 21.
Argued November 17, 1964.
Decided April 5, 1965.

214 F. Supp. 244, reversed.

John C. Danielson argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Jordan Jay Hillman.

Frank M. Long argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Philip H. Porter, R. K. Merrill and Richard R. Robinson.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Lionel Kestenbaum, Robert W. Ginnane and Arthur Cerra filed a memorandum for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is reversed. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co., 270 U.S. 266, 278.

Page 380 U.S. 448, 449

 


U.S. Supreme Court

CHICAGO & N.W. R.W. v. CHICAGO MIL. ST. PAUL & PAC. R., 380 U.S. 448 (1965)

380 U.S. 448

CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY CO. v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL &
PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

WISCONSIN.

No. 21.
Argued November 17, 1964.
Decided April 5, 1965.

214 F. Supp. 244, reversed.

John C. Danielson argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Jordan Jay Hillman.

Frank M. Long argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Philip H. Porter, R. K. Merrill and Richard R. Robinson.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Lionel Kestenbaum, Robert W. Ginnane and Arthur Cerra filed a memorandum for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is reversed. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co., 270 U.S. 266, 278.

Page 380 U.S. 448, 449

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.