Contracts · MBE-tested
Universal Interpretive Shuttle Corp. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission et al.
393 U.S. 811·Supreme Court of the United States·1968
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.
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. 19.
Universal Interpretive Shuttle Corp. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission et al.
Russell W. Cunningham for respondent Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, and Manuel J. Davis for respondent D. C. Transit System, Inc., on the motions.
Jeffrey L. Nagin and Ralph S. Cunningham, Jr., for petitioner.
Solicitor General Griswold for the United States, as amicus curiae, and Mr. Davis for respondent D. C. Transit System, Inc., in opposition to the motion of respondent Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 390 U. S. 943.] Motion of respondent Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission to preclude argument on question not in issue, and the motion of respondent D. C. Transit System, Inc., to clarify the status of question regarding D. C. Transit System’s franchise, denied.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.