General
Great Lakes Steel Corp. v. United States et al.
337 U.S. 952·Supreme Court of the United States·1949
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Jackson, and Mr. Justice Burton dissent for reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in United States v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 337 U. S. 426, 444.
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. 749.
Great Lakes Steel Corp. v. United States et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Sherwin A. Hill, Edward T. Goodrich, James McEvoy, Jr. and Harry D. Fenske for appellant.
Solicitor General Perlman for the United States; Daniel W. Knowlton, Edward M. Reidy and Daniel H. Kunkel for the Interstate Commerce Commission; and W. T. Pierson -and Frank H. Cole, Jr. for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. et al., appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
Judgment reversed. United States v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 337 U. S. 426.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Jackson, and Mr. Justice Burton dissent for reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in United States v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 337 U. S. 426, 444.