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.
New York Central Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al.; Erie Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al.; and New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al., 1958 — 357 U.S. 917 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
New York Central Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al.; Erie Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al.; and New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al.
357 U.S. 917·Supreme Court of the United States·1958
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. 838.
No. 918.
No. 948.
New York Central Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al.; Erie Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al.; and New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al.
Thomas E. Dewey and Gerald E. Dwyer for appellant in No. 838. Charles W. Hutchinson, Raymond J. Lamb and Frederick G. Hoffmann for appellant in No. 918. Joseph J. Biunno for appellant in No. 948. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen, Robert W. Ginnane and Charlie H. Johns, Jr. for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission, appellees in Nos. 838 and 918. David D. Furman, Acting Attorney General of New Jersey, and William A. Roberts, for the Board of Public Utility Commissioners et al., and Milton T. Lasher, Mr. Roberts and Edgar Turlington for Bergen County, New Jersey, et al.,. appellees in No. 838. Mr. Furman and Joseph P. Lordi and Felix G. Forlenza, Deputy Attorneys General of New Jersey, for the Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al., appellees in No. 918.
[MAJORITY]
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In these cases probable jurisdiction is noted. The motion to strike memorandum for appellees, United States and Interstate Commerce Commission, in support of statements as to jurisdiction in No. 838 is denied.
Reported below: No. 838, 158 F. Supp. 98; Nos. 918 and 948, 158 F. Supp. 104.