Boston Maine Co v. United States Arizona Corporation Commission v. United States Union Pacific Co v. United States
| Decision Date | 10 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 497,No. 480,No. 343,343,480,497 |
| Parties | BOSTON & MAINE R. CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES et al. ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION et al. v. UNITED STATES et al. UNION PACIFIC R. CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
See 396 U.S. 1030, 90 S.Ct. 548.
Carl E. Newton and M. Lauck Walton, for appellants Boston & Maine R. Co. and others.
Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen. of Oregon, Richard W. Sabin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Clarence A. H. Meyer, Atty. Gen. of Nebraska, for appellants Arizona Corporation Commission and others.
Howard J. Trienens, Martin M. Lucente, George L. Saunders, Jr., R. Ames, W. W. Dalton, K. A. Dobbins, J. H. Durkin, N. Melvin, T. A. Miller, A. B. Russ, Jr., R. D. Sickler, E. L. Van Dellen, R. W. Yost, and S. R. Brittingham, Jr., for appellants Union Pacific R. Co. and others.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General McLaren, Howard E. Shapiro, Fritz R. Kahn, and Jerome Nelson, for the United States and others.
Hugh B. Cox and William H. Allen, for railroad appellees.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgments are affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boston and Maine Corp., In re
...F.Supp. 615 (D.Mass.), and Union Pacific R. R. v. United States, 300 F.Supp. 318 (D.Neb.), both aff'd, without opinion, 396 U.S. 27, 90 S.Ct. 196, 24 L.Ed.2d 142 (1969).7 See note 6.8 The railroads also cite Chicago, M. & St. P. R. R. v. Wisconsin, 238 U.S 491, 35 S.Ct. 869, 59 L.Ed. 1423 (......
-
Baltimore & O. C. T. R. Co. v. U.S.
...States, 300 F.Supp. 318 (D.Nev.1969); Boston & Me. R. R. v. United States, 297 F.Supp. 615 (D.Mass.), Aff'd per curiam, 396 U.S. 27, 90 S.Ct. 196, 24 L.Ed.2d 142 (1969).10 See United States v. Florida E. Coast Ry. Co., 410 U.S. at 224, 93 S.Ct. 810, On remand, 368 F.Supp. 1009 (M.D.Fla.1973......
-
General Mills, Inc. v. United States
...300 F.Supp. 318 (D.Neb.1969), and Boston & M. R.R. v. United States, 297 F.Supp. 615 (D.Mass.1969), affirmed per curiam, 396 U.S. 27, 90 S.Ct. 196, 24 L.Ed.2d 142 (1969). 7 Incentive Per Diem Charges — 1968, 337 I.C.C. 183 and 217, sustained on review sub nom., Long Island R.R. v. United St......
-
Consolidated Rail Corp. v. U.S.
...Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 300 F.Supp. 318 (D.Neb.) (three-judge court), aff'd, sub nom. Boston & Maine R.R. v. United States, 396 U.S. 27, 90 S.Ct. 196, 24 L.Ed.2d 142 (1969).8 Per diem payments are made to the owning line even if it does not participate in a car's interline mo......