United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission 899 Brundage v. United States City of Auburn v. United States Living Toncommittee v. Interstate Commerce Commission
| Decision Date | 24 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 1003,ANTI-MERGER,No. 999,No. 942,942,999,1003 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, appellant, v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION et al. .no. 899. Charles E. BRUNDAGE et al., appellants, v. UNITED STATES et al. CITY OF AUBURN, appellant, v. UNITED STATES et al. LIVING TONCOMMITTEE, appellant, v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
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.
Page 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lawn King, Inc.
... ... , 58 in New Jersey and 96 in other states ... Page 187 ... The ... was the per se rule, relying inter alia on United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U.S. 365, 87 ... :9-1 et seq., is not preempted under the Commerce Clause (U.S.Const., Art. I, § 8) by federal ... scheme and participated in it." See Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208, ... ...
-
INTERNATIONAL T. & T. CORP. v. General Tel. & Elec. Corp.
... ... Civ. No. 2754 ... United States District Court, D. Hawaii ... July 14, ... Solin, Robert E. McKee, New York City, Maxwell M. Blecher, Harold R. Collins, Jr., ... that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as successor in the communications field o the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), had sole regulatory ... 469, 475, 53 S.Ct. 444, 446, 77 L.Ed. 899 (1933) ... The record of the ... overall program of pulling its people — living on a crowded, resource-poor island — up by ... ...
-
Sanford v. Rockefeller
... ... , Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon, New York City, for Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of the City of ... are again before us as a result of the United States Supreme Court's vacatur of our prior ... with periodic across-the-board cost-of-living increases, plus the enviable health, hospital, ... Significantly, Civil Service Commission and Office of Economic Opportunity regulations ... ...
-
Sharrock v. Dell Buick-Cadillac, Inc.
... ... Hirshowitz and John M. Farrar, New York City, of counsel), in his statutory capacity under ... protection than may be secured under the United States Constitution (see, e. g., People v ... ...