BATTAGLIA v. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 115 (1966)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
BATTAGLIA v. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 115 (1966) 385 U.S. 115BATTAGLIA ET AL., DBA PRODUCE TRANSPORT
DISPATCH v. UNITED STATES
ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
OREGON. No. 564.
Decided November 21, 1966.
Affirmed.
Earle V. White for appellants.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert Ginnane and Betty Jo Christian for the United States et al. Randall B. Kester, John F. Weisser, Jr., James W. Nisbet, J. D. Feeney and Ed White for railroad appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.
Opinions
ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON. No. 564.
Decided November 21, 1966.
Affirmed. Earle V. White for appellants. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert Ginnane and Betty Jo Christian for the United States et al. Randall B. Kester, John F. Weisser, Jr., James W. Nisbet, J. D. Feeney and Ed White for railroad appellees. PER CURIAM. The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument. Page 385 U.S. 115, 116
U.S. Supreme Court
BATTAGLIA v. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 115 (1966) 385 U.S. 115 BATTAGLIA ET AL., DBA PRODUCE TRANSPORT DISPATCH v. UNITED STATESET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON. No. 564.
Decided November 21, 1966.
Affirmed. Earle V. White for appellants. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert Ginnane and Betty Jo Christian for the United States et al. Randall B. Kester, John F. Weisser, Jr., James W. Nisbet, J. D. Feeney and Ed White for railroad appellees. PER CURIAM. The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument. Page 385 U.S. 115, 116
Search This Case
