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.
W. J. Dillner Transfer Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al.; W. J. Dillner Transfer Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al., 1955 — 349 U.S. 903 · caselaw · US
General
W. J. Dillner Transfer Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al.; W. J. Dillner Transfer Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al.
349 U.S. 903·Supreme Court of the United States·1955
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
No. 600.
No. 601.
W. J. Dillner Transfer Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al. W. J. Dillner Transfer Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al.
J. Paul Rupp and Ernie Adamson for appellant.
Thomas M. Kerrigan for the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission; and Harold S. Shertz for Highway Express Lines, Inc. et al., appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Western District; and
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District.
Per Curiam:
The motions to dismiss are granted and the appeals are dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: See 175 Pa. Super. 461, 472, 107 A. 2d 159, 164.