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.
ILLINOIS et al. v. UNITED STATES et al., 1963 — 373 U.S. 378 · caselaw · US
General
ILLINOIS et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
373 U.S. 378·Supreme Court of the United States·1963
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
ILLINOIS et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
No. 937.
Decided May 20, 1963.
William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, Edward V. Hanrahan, Special Assistant Attorney General, Harold A. Cowen, Assistant Attorney General, and S. Ashley Guthrie for appellants.
Robert W. Ginnane and Stanton P. Sender for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission; and James J. Magner, Frederick E. Stout and L. Agnew Myers, Jr. for Chicago North Shore & Milwaukee Railway, appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgments affirmed.