Transport, Inc v. United States, No. 856
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 85 S.Ct. 1103,380 U.S. 450,14 L.Ed.2d 151 |
| Parties | U. S. A. C. TRANSPORT, INC. v. UNITED STATES et al |
| Docket Number | No. 856 |
| Decision Date | 05 April 1965 |
v.
UNITED STATES et al.
Supreme Court of the United States
Paul F. Sullivan, for appellant.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Robert B. Hummel, Jerry Z. Pruzansky, Robert W. Ginnane and Betty Jo Christian, for the United States and others.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
14 practice notes
-
Towne Services House. Goods Transp. Co. v. United States, Civ. A. No. A-70-CA-114.
...a corporation (W.D.Penn.1963), 214 F.Supp. 695; U.S. A.C. Transport, Inc. v. United States, 235 F.Supp. 689, 693 (D.Del.1964), affirmed 380 U.S. 450, 85 S.Ct. 1103, 14 L.Ed.2d 151; W. J. Dillner Transfer Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 193 F.Supp. 823, 828 (W.D.Pa.1961), affirmed 368......
-
Ginzburg v. United States Mishkin v. State of New York, Nos. 42 and 49
...might Page 465 be obtained. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, 338 F.2d 12. We granted certiorari, 380 U.S. 961, 85 S.Ct. 1103, 14 L.Ed.2d 152. We affirm. Since petitioners do not argue that the trial judge misconceived or failed to apply the standards we first enunciated ......
-
United States v. Klaw, No. 70
...N.Y.S.2d 342 (1st Dept. 1962), aff'd, 15 N.Y.2d 671, 255 N.Y.S.2d 881, 204 N.E.2d 209 (1964), probable jurisdiction noted, 380 U.S. 960, 85 S.Ct. 1103, 14 L.Ed.2d 152 (1965) (No. 858, 1964 Term, renumbered No. 49, 1965 Term). See also Friedman v. New York, 34 U.S.L. Week 3014 (New York Sup.......
-
Mishkin v. State of New York, No. 49
...209 (1964), remittitur amended, 15 N.Y.2d 724, 256 N.Y.S.2d 936, 205 N.E.2d 201 (1965). We noted probable jurisdiction. 380 U.S. 960, 85 S.Ct. 1103, 14 L.Ed.2d 15i. We affirm. Appellant was not prosecuted for anything he said or believed, but for what he did, for his dominant role in severa......
Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
-
Towne Services House. Goods Transp. Co. v. United States, Civ. A. No. A-70-CA-114.
...a corporation (W.D.Penn.1963), 214 F.Supp. 695; U.S. A.C. Transport, Inc. v. United States, 235 F.Supp. 689, 693 (D.Del.1964), affirmed 380 U.S. 450, 85 S.Ct. 1103, 14 L.Ed.2d 151; W. J. Dillner Transfer Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 193 F.Supp. 823, 828 (W.D.Pa.1961), affirmed 368......
-
Ginzburg v. United States Mishkin v. State of New York, Nos. 42 and 49
...might Page 465 be obtained. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, 338 F.2d 12. We granted certiorari, 380 U.S. 961, 85 S.Ct. 1103, 14 L.Ed.2d 152. We affirm. Since petitioners do not argue that the trial judge misconceived or failed to apply the standards we first enunciated ......
-
United States v. Klaw, No. 70
...N.Y.S.2d 342 (1st Dept. 1962), aff'd, 15 N.Y.2d 671, 255 N.Y.S.2d 881, 204 N.E.2d 209 (1964), probable jurisdiction noted, 380 U.S. 960, 85 S.Ct. 1103, 14 L.Ed.2d 152 (1965) (No. 858, 1964 Term, renumbered No. 49, 1965 Term). See also Friedman v. New York, 34 U.S.L. Week 3014 (New York Sup.......
-
Mishkin v. State of New York, No. 49
...209 (1964), remittitur amended, 15 N.Y.2d 724, 256 N.Y.S.2d 936, 205 N.E.2d 201 (1965). We noted probable jurisdiction. 380 U.S. 960, 85 S.Ct. 1103, 14 L.Ed.2d 15i. We affirm. Appellant was not prosecuted for anything he said or believed, but for what he did, for his dominant role in severa......
Request a trial to view additional results