NORTHERN FREIGHT LINES v. UNITED STATES, 397 U.S. 247 (1970)
U.S. Supreme Court
NORTHERN FREIGHT LINES v. UNITED STATES, 397 U.S. 247 (1970)
397 U.S. 247 NORTHERN FREIGHT LINES, INC., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA No. 1100.
Decided March 16, 1970
304 F. Supp. 536, affirmed.
Guy H. Postell, David A. Sutherlund, David Axelrod, Roland Rice, John S. Fessenden, Richard R. Sigmon, Peter T. Beardsley, R. Edwin Brady, Albert B. Rosenbaum, Donald E. Cross, Bryce Rea, Jr., Eugene T. Liipfert, and William O. Turney for appellants.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General McLaren, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert W. Ginnane, Fritz R. Kahn, and Raymond M. Zimmet for the United States et al., John E. Robson and Arthur M. Wisehart for Railway Express Agency, Inc., and John J. C. Martin for Drug & Toilet Preparation Traffic Conference et al., appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.
U.S. Supreme Court
NORTHERN FREIGHT LINES v. UNITED STATES, 397 U.S. 247 (1970)
397 U.S. 247 NORTHERN FREIGHT LINES, INC., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA No. 1100.
Decided March 16, 1970
304 F. Supp. 536, affirmed.
Guy H. Postell, David A. Sutherlund, David Axelrod, Roland Rice, John S. Fessenden, Richard R. Sigmon, Peter T. Beardsley, R. Edwin Brady, Albert B. Rosenbaum, Donald E. Cross, Bryce Rea, Jr., Eugene T. Liipfert, and William O. Turney for appellants.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General McLaren, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert W. Ginnane, Fritz R. Kahn, and Raymond M. Zimmet for the United States et al., John E. Robson and Arthur M. Wisehart for Railway Express Agency, Inc., and John J. C. Martin for Drug & Toilet Preparation Traffic Conference et al., appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Page 397 U.S. 247, 248
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.