Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., et al. v. UNITED STATES et al., 1966 — 382 U.S. 372 · caselaw · US
General
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
382 U.S. 372·Supreme Court of the United States·1966
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Harlan are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
No. 510.
Decided January 17, 1966.
Peter T. Beardsley, Richard R. Sigmon, Bryce Rea, Jr., and Ralph C. Busser, Jr., for appellants in No. 510. Carl Helmetag, Jr., for appellant in No. 511.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Lionel Kestenbaum and Robert W. Ginnane for the United States et al. John F. Donelan and John M. Cleary for National Industrial Traffic League, ap-pellee in both cases. Joseph E. Keller and W. H. Borghesani, Jr., for South Paterson Trucking Co., Inc., et al.; and William A. Goichman and Joseph C. Bruno for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, appellees in No. 511.
Together with No. 511, Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. United States et al., also on appeal from the same court.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Harlan are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.