BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. v. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 3 (1966)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. v. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 3 (1966)

385 U.S. 3

BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 104.
Decided October 10, 1966.

249 F. Supp. 712, affirmed.

Samuel P. Delisi and Edward A. Kaier for appellants.

Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Charles L. Marinaccio and Robert W. Ginnane for the United States et al. James M. Carter for appellee Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Co.

PER CURIAM.

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

BUCHANAN v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, <a href="/cases/federal/us/385/3/case.html">385 U.S. 3</a> (1966) 385 U.S. 3 (1966) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BUCHANAN v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, 385 U.S. 3 (1966)

385 U.S. 3

BUCHANAN ET AL. v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO. No. 115.
Decided October 10, 1966.

249 F. Supp. 860, appeal dismissed.

Richard M. Markus for appellants.

William B. Saxbe, Attorney General of Ohio, and Gerald A. Donahue, First Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Page 385 U.S. 3, 4




U.S. Supreme Court

BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. v. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 3 (1966)

385 U.S. 3

BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 104.
Decided October 10, 1966.

249 F. Supp. 712, affirmed.

Samuel P. Delisi and Edward A. Kaier for appellants.

Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Charles L. Marinaccio and Robert W. Ginnane for the United States et al. James M. Carter for appellee Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Co.

PER CURIAM.

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

BUCHANAN v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, <a href="/cases/federal/us/385/3/case.html">385 U.S. 3</a> (1966) 385 U.S. 3 (1966) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BUCHANAN v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, 385 U.S. 3 (1966)

385 U.S. 3

BUCHANAN ET AL. v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO. No. 115.
Decided October 10, 1966.

249 F. Supp. 860, appeal dismissed.

Richard M. Markus for appellants.

William B. Saxbe, Attorney General of Ohio, and Gerald A. Donahue, First Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Page 385 U.S. 3, 4

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.