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.
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO. v. UNITED STATES et al., 1967 — 386 U.S. 544 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO. v. UNITED STATES et al.
386 U.S. 544·Supreme Court of the United States·1967
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.
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
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO. v. UNITED STATES et al.
No. 638.
Decided April 10, 1967.
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 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.
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.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
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.