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.
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Gold Kist, Inc., et al.; Refrigerated Transport Co., Inc. v. Gold Kist, Inc., et al.; and American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Gold Kist, Inc., et al., 1972 — 409 U.S. 808 · caselaw · US
General
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Gold Kist, Inc., et al.; Refrigerated Transport Co., Inc. v. Gold Kist, Inc., et al.; and American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Gold Kist, Inc., et al.
409 U.S. 808·Supreme Court of the United States·1972
Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Blackmun would note probable jurisdiction and set cases for oral argument.
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. 71-1399.
No. 71-1404.
No. 71-1407.
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Gold Kist, Inc., et al.; Refrigerated Transport Co., Inc. v. Gold Kist, Inc., et al.; and American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Gold Kist, Inc., et al.
[MAJORITY]
Affirmed on appeals from D. C. N. D. Ga.
Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Blackmun would note probable jurisdiction and set cases for oral argument.
Reported below: 339 F. Supp. 1249.