Florida East Coast Railway Co v. United States City of Tampa, Florida v. United States Railway Labor Executives Association v. United States Southern Railway System v. United States

• Court: U.S. Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM; DOUGLAS; FORTAS
• Citation: Florida East Coast Railway Co v. United States City of Tampa, Florida v. United States Railway Labor Executives Association v. United States Southern Railway System v. United States, 386 U.S. 544, 87 S.Ct. 1299, 18 L.Ed.2d 285 (1967)
• Decision Date: 10 April 1967
• Docket Number: No. 640,No. 639,No. 638,No. 641,638,639,640,641
• Parties: FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO. v. UNITED STATES et al. CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA v. UNITED STATES et al. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION et al. v. UNITED STATES et al. SOUTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM v. UNITED STATES

386 U.S. 544

87 S.Ct. 1299

18 L.Ed.2d 285

FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO.

v. UNITED STATES et al.

No. 638.

CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA

v. UNITED STATES et al.

No. 639.

RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION et al.

v. UNITED STATES et al.

No. 640.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM

v. UNITED STATES.

No. 641.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 10, 1967

A. Alvis Layne, for appellant Florida East Coast Railway Co.

Wm. Reece Smith, Jr., for appellant City of Tampa, Fla.

Edward J. Hickey, Jr., James L. Highsaw, Jr., William G. Mahoney and

William J. Hickey, for appellants Railway Labor Executives Ass'n and others.

W. Graham Claytor, Jr., and John K. Mallory, Jr., for appellant Southern Railway System.

Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Richard A. Posner, Edwin M. Zimmerman and Lionel Kestenbaum, for appellee United States.

Robert W. Ginnane, Fritz R. Kahn and Betty Jo Christian, for appellee Interstate Commerce Commission.

Paul A. Porter and Dennis G. Lyons, for appellees Seaboard Air Line R. Co. and others.

James M. Weaver, for Tampa Port Authority, amicus curiae.

Lewis W. Petteway and B. Kenneth Gatlin, for Florida Public Service Commission, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to affirm in Nos. 638, 639, and 641 are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

The motion to dismiss in No. 640 is granted and the appeal is dismissed as moot.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted in Nos. 638, 639, and 641.

Mr. Justice FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.