General
SOUTHERN PAC. CO. et al. v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION et al.
188 F. 241·United States Commerce Court·1911
Before KNAPP, Presiding Judge, and ARCHBADD, HUNT, CARDAND, and MACK, Associate Judges.
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
SOUTHERN PAC. CO. et al. v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION et al.
(Commerce Court.
July 20, 1911.)
No. 1.
Bill by the Southern Pacific Company and another against the Interstate Commerce Commission and another.
Application for a temporary injunction. Application granted, and motion to dismiss denied.
„ Robert Dunlap, T. J. Norton, E. C. Dillard, H. A. Scandrett, and C. W. Dur-brow (Gardiner Datlirop and W. F. Herrin, of counsel), for petitioners.
J. A. Fowler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Blackburn Esterline, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., and P. J. Farrell, for respondent Interstate Commerce Commission.
Seth Mann, for interveners.
Before KNAPP, Presiding Judge, and ARCHBADD, HUNT, CARDAND, and MACK, Associate Judges.
[MAJORITY — GARLAND, Judge.]
GARLAND, Judge.
The bill in this case was filed for the same purpose as the bill in case No. 2, Atchison, Topeka & Santa F6 Railway Co. Southern Pacific Co., and San Pedro, Dos Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co., v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States, 188 Fed. 229, except that the switching service for which a charge is claimed is performed at the city of San Francisco, Cal.
For the reasons stated in the opinion filed in case No. 2, above mentioned, the motion for a temporary injunction made by the petitioners is granted, and the motion to dismiss made by the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission is denied.
MACK, Judge, dissenting. See 188 Fed. 929.