GREYHOUND LINES, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 216 (1967)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
GREYHOUND LINES, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 216 (1967) 389 U.S. 216GREYHOUND LINES, INC. v. UNITED STATES
ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT
OF ILLINOIS. No. 555.
Decided December 4, 1967.
268 F. Supp. 746, affirmed.
Amos Mathews and Robert J. Bernard for appellant.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert W. Ginnane and Raymond M. Zimmet for the United States et al., and John L. Arrington, Jr., for Missouri, Kansas & Oklahoma Coach Lines, appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Opinions
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF ILLINOIS. No. 555.
Decided December 4, 1967.
268 F. Supp. 746, affirmed. Amos Mathews and Robert J. Bernard for appellant. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert W. Ginnane and Raymond M. Zimmet for the United States et al., and John L. Arrington, Jr., for Missouri, Kansas & Oklahoma Coach Lines, appellees. PER CURIAM. The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Page 389 U.S. 216, 217
U.S. Supreme Court
GREYHOUND LINES, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 216 (1967) 389 U.S. 216 GREYHOUND LINES, INC. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF ILLINOIS. No. 555.
Decided December 4, 1967.
268 F. Supp. 746, affirmed. Amos Mathews and Robert J. Bernard for appellant. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert W. Ginnane and Raymond M. Zimmet for the United States et al., and John L. Arrington, Jr., for Missouri, Kansas & Oklahoma Coach Lines, appellees. PER CURIAM. The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Page 389 U.S. 216, 217
Search This Case
