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.
A. L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc., et al. v. United States et al.; and Board of Trade of Chicago v. United States et al., 1963 — 374 U.S. 823 · caselaw · US
General
A. L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc., et al. v. United States et al.; and Board of Trade of Chicago v. United States et al.
374 U.S. 823·Supreme Court of the United States·1963
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. 746.
No. 747.
Edward B. Hayes for appellants in No. 746. Harold E. Spencer, Richard M. Freeman and J. S. Chartrand for appellant in No. 747: Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger and Robert B. Hummel for the United States; Robert W. Ginnane and H. Neü Garson for the Interstate Commerce Commission; Richard J. Murphy for the New York Central Railroad Co.; and Leo P. Day for McNabb Grain Co. et al., appellees.
A. L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc., et al. v. United States et al.; and Board of Trade of Chicago v. United States et al.
[MAJORITY]
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern. District of Illinois. Probable jurisdiction noted.