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.
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. et al. v. United States et al., 1966 — 385 U.S. 897 · caselaw · US
Administrative
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. et al. v. United States et al.
385 U.S. 897·Supreme Court of the United States·1966
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. 305.
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. et al. v. United States et al.
William H. Dempsey, Jr., Giles Morrow, Harry C. Ames, Peter T. Beardsley, Harry Jordan, R. Edwin Brady, Jeremiah C. Waterman, C. W. Fiddes, David Axelrod, Eugene T. Liipfert and Warren A. Goff for appellants.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Robert S. Rijkind, Howard E. Shapiro, Charles L. Marinaccio, Robert W. Gin/nane and Betty Jo Christian for the United States et al., and Thomas D. Barr and Owen Jameson for
Railway Express Agency, Inc., et al., appellees.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from D. C. Colo. Probable jurisdiction noted.