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. J-T Transport Co., Inc., et al.; and U. S. A. C. Transport, Inc., et al. v. J-T Transport Co., Inc., et al., 1961 — 365 U.S. 808 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Interstate Commerce Commission v. J-T Transport Co., Inc., et al.; and U. S. A. C. Transport, Inc., et al. v. J-T Transport Co., Inc., et al.
365 U.S. 808·Supreme Court of the United States·1961
Mr. Justice Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
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. 563.
No. 564.
Interstate Commerce Commission v. J-T Transport Co., Inc., et al.; and U. S. A. C. Transport, Inc., et al. v. J-T Transport Co., Inc., et al.
Mr. Justice Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Robert W. Qinnane and James Y. Piper for appellant in No. 563.
Roland Rice and James E. Wilson for appellants in No. 564.
Solicitor General Rankin filed a memorandum for the United States, suggesting that the Court note probable jurisdiction.
James W. Wrape and Clarence D. Todd for appellees.
[MAJORITY]
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Probable jurisdiction noted.