Contracts · MBE-tested
United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission et al.; Brundage et al. v. United States et al.; City of Auburn v. United States et al.; and Livingston Anti-Merger Committee v. Interstate Commerce Commission et al.
394 U.S. 902·Supreme Court of the United States·1969
Mr. Justice Fortas 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. 899.
No. 942.
No. 999.
No. 1003.
United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission et al.; Brundage et al. v. United States et al.; City of Auburn v. United States et al.; and Livingston Anti-Merger Committee v. Interstate Commerce Commission et al.
Robert W. Ginnane, Fritz R. Kahn, and Jerome Nelson for the Interstate Commerce Commission on motion to advance and to dispense with printing appendix.
Hugh B. Cox, Ray Garrett, D. Robert Thomas, Lee B. McTurnan, Anthony Kane, Louis E. Torinus, Earl F. Requa, Frank S. Farrell, Eldon Martin, and Richard J. Flynn for Great Northern Railway Co. et al. on motion to advance.
Louis B. Dailey and Harry Tyson Carter for appellants Brundage et al. in opposition to motions to advance.
[MAJORITY]
Appeals from D. C. D. C. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 393 U. S. 1077.] Motions of certain appellees to advance and to dispense with printing appendix denied.
Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.