BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. et al. v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. et al.

BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. et al. v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. et al. No. 143. Decided April 4, 1966. Hugh B. Cox and William H. Allen for appellants. Douglas F. Smith, Howard J. Trienens, George L. Saunders, Jr., John E. McCullough, S. R. Brittingham, Jr., Monroe E. Clinton, Frank S. Farrell, Lawrence W. Hobbs, L. E. Torinus, Jr., and E. L. Van Dellen for appellees Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al., and E. P. Porter, Alan C. Furth, Charles W. Burkett, Robert L. Pierce and Thormund A. Miller for appellees Southern Pacific Co. et al., on memoranda suggesting that the cause is moot. Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General of Oregon, Lloyd G. Hammel and Richard W. Sabin, Assistant Attorneys General, John J. O’Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and Frank P. Hayes, Assistant Attorney General, for intervening plaintiffs-appellees, Regulatory Commissions of the State of Arizona et al., and Mary Moran Pajalich and J. Thom-ason Phelps for intervening plaintiffs-appellees, the State of California et al., on motions to affirm. Solicitor General Marshall and Robert W. Ginnane on the memorandum for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission in response to the suggestions of mootness and in opposition to the motions to affirm. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. We treat the order of the District Court as divisible from the appeals in No. 159, Chicago & North Western R. Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co., and No. 576, United States v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. Upon consideration of the memoranda of certain appel-lees and an examination of the entire record, the judgment is vacated as respects the parties to this appeal and to that extent the cause is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.