U.S. v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 393 U.S. 1077 (1969)

U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION , 393 U.S. 1077 (1969)

393 U.S. 1077

UNITED STATES, appellant, v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION et al.

.no. 899.

Charles E. BRUNDAGE et al., appellants, v. UNITED STATES et al.
No. 942.

CITY OF AUBURN, appellant, v. UNITED STATES et al.
No. 999.

LIVING TON ANTI-MERGER COMMITTEE, appellant, v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION et al.
No. 1003.

Supreme Court of the United States

February 24, 1969

Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Zimmerman, Deputy Solicitor General Springer and Howard E. Shapiro, for the United States.

Louis B. Dailey and Harry Tyson Carter, for appellants Charles E. Brundage and others.

Robert L. Wald and Joel E. Hoffman, for appellant City of Auburn.

Valentine B. Deale, for appellant Livingston Anti-Merger Committee.

Robert W. Ginnane, Fritz R. Kahn and Jerome Nelson, for appellee Interstate Commerce Commission.

Alan F. Wohlstetter, for appellees 230 Pacific Northwest Shippers. [ U.S. v. Interstate Commerce Commission 393 U.S. 1077 (1969) ][1077-Continued]

Robert Y. Thornton, Atty. Gen. of Oregon, and Richard W. Sabin, for appellee Public Utility Commissioner.

Hugh B. Cox, Ray Garrett, D. Robert Thomas, Lee B. McTurnan, Anthony Kane, Louis E. Torinus, Earl F. Requa, Frank S. Farrell, Eldon Martin and Richard J. Flynn, for appellees Great Northern Railway Co. and others.

Edwin O. Schiewe, Raymond K. Merrill, Thomas H. Ploss and Edward H. Foley, for appellee Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co.

In these cases probable jurisdiction noted. Cases consolidated and a total of four hours is alloted for oral argument for these appeals and any other appeal taken from the same judgment as to which jurisdiction may hereafter be noted.

Mr. Justice FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter.


U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION , 393 U.S. 1077 (1969)

393 U.S. 1077

UNITED STATES, appellant, v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION et al.

.no. 899.

Charles E. BRUNDAGE et al., appellants, v. UNITED STATES et al.
No. 942.

CITY OF AUBURN, appellant, v. UNITED STATES et al.
No. 999.

LIVING TON ANTI-MERGER COMMITTEE, appellant, v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION et al.
No. 1003.

Supreme Court of the United States

February 24, 1969

Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Zimmerman, Deputy Solicitor General Springer and Howard E. Shapiro, for the United States.

Louis B. Dailey and Harry Tyson Carter, for appellants Charles E. Brundage and others.

Robert L. Wald and Joel E. Hoffman, for appellant City of Auburn.

Valentine B. Deale, for appellant Livingston Anti-Merger Committee.

Robert W. Ginnane, Fritz R. Kahn and Jerome Nelson, for appellee Interstate Commerce Commission.

Alan F. Wohlstetter, for appellees 230 Pacific Northwest Shippers. [ U.S. v. Interstate Commerce Commission 393 U.S. 1077 (1969) ][1077-Continued]

Robert Y. Thornton, Atty. Gen. of Oregon, and Richard W. Sabin, for appellee Public Utility Commissioner.

Hugh B. Cox, Ray Garrett, D. Robert Thomas, Lee B. McTurnan, Anthony Kane, Louis E. Torinus, Earl F. Requa, Frank S. Farrell, Eldon Martin and Richard J. Flynn, for appellees Great Northern Railway Co. and others.

Edwin O. Schiewe, Raymond K. Merrill, Thomas H. Ploss and Edward H. Foley, for appellee Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co.

In these cases probable jurisdiction noted. Cases consolidated and a total of four hours is alloted for oral argument for these appeals and any other appeal taken from the same judgment as to which jurisdiction may hereafter be noted.

Mr. Justice FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter.

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.