Could not find header file for oye

 

  • View enhanced case on Westlaw
  • KeyCite this case on Westlaw
  • http://laws.findlaw.com/us/386/544.html
    Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
    Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts

    U.S. Supreme Court Reports

    FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO. v. UNITED STATES, 386 U.S. 544 (1967)

    FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO. v. UNITED STATES, 386 U.S. 544 (1967) 386 U.S. 544

    FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
    FLORIDA. No. 638.
    Decided April 10, 1967. *  

    [ Footnote * ] Together with No. 639, City of Tampa v. United States et al.; No. 640, Railway Labor Executives' Association et al. v. United States et al.; and No. 641, Southern Railway System v. United States, also on appeal from the same court.

    259 F. Supp. 993, affirmed in Nos. 638, 639 and 641, dismissed as moot in No. 640.

    A. Alvis Layne for appellant in No. 638; Wm. Reece Smith, Jr., for appellant in No. 639; Edward J. Hickey, Jr., James L. Highsaw, Jr., William G. Mahoney and [386 U.S. 544, 545]   William J. Hickey for appellants in No. 640; W. Graham Claytor, Jr., and John K. Mallory, Jr., for appellant in No. 641.

    Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Richard A. Posner, Edwin M. Zimmerman and Lionel Kestenbaum for the United States in Nos. 638, 639 and 641; Robert W. Ginnane, Fritz R. Kahn and Betty Jo Christian for the Interstate Commerce Commission in Nos. 638, 639 and 641; Paul A. Porter and Dennis G. Lyons for Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co. et al., appellees.

    James M. Weaver filed a brief for the Tampa Port Authority, as amicus curiae, urging reversal. Lewis W. Petteway and B. Kenneth Gatlin filed a brief for the Florida Public Service Commission, as amicus curiae, in opposition to the motions to affirm.

    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. [386 U.S. 544, 546]  

    FindLaw Career Center

    Ads by FindLaw