FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO. v. UNITED STATES
Annotate this Case
386 U.S. 544 (1967)
U.S. Supreme Court Reports
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO. v. UNITED STATES, 386 U.S. 544 (1967)
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
FLORIDA. No. 638.
Decided April 10, 1967.*
[Footnote *] Together with No. 639, City of Tampa v. United States et al.; No. 640, Railway Labor Executives' Association et al. v. United States et al.; and No. 641, Southern Railway System v. United States, also on appeal from the same court.
259 F. Supp. 993, affirmed in Nos. 638, 639 and 641, dismissed as moot in No. 640.
A. Alvis Layne for appellant in No. 638; Wm. Reece Smith, Jr., for appellant in No. 639; Edward J. Hickey, Jr., James L. Highsaw, Jr., William G. Mahoney and
William J. Hickey for appellants in No. 640; W. Graham Claytor, Jr., and John K. Mallory, Jr., for appellant in No. 641.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Richard A. Posner, Edwin M. Zimmerman and Lionel Kestenbaum for the United States in Nos. 638, 639 and 641; Robert W. Ginnane, Fritz R. Kahn and Betty Jo Christian for the Interstate Commerce Commission in Nos. 638, 639 and 641; Paul A. Porter and Dennis G. Lyons for Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co. et al., appellees.
James M. Weaver filed a brief for the Tampa Port Authority, as amicus curiae, urging reversal. Lewis W. Petteway and B. Kenneth Gatlin filed a brief for the Florida Public Service Commission, as amicus curiae, in opposition to the motions to affirm.
The motions to affirm in Nos. 638, 639, and 641 are granted and the judgment is affirmed.
The motion to dismiss in No. 640 is granted and the appeal is dismissed as moot.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted in Nos. 638, 639, and 641.
MR. JUSTICE FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases. [386 U.S. 544, 546]
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.