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. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. et al.; Union Pacific Railroad Co. et al. v. United States et al.; and United States et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. et al.; Washington Public Service Commission et al. v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. et al.; Union Pacific Railroad Co. et al. v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. et al.; and United States et al. v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. et al., 1955 — 350 U.S. 871 · caselaw · US
General
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. et al.; Union Pacific Railroad Co. et al. v. United States et al.; and United States et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. et al.; Washington Public Service Commission et al. v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. et al.; Union Pacific Railroad Co. et al. v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. et al.; and United States et al. v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. et al.
350 U.S. 871·Supreme Court of the United States·1955
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. 117.
No. 118.
No. 119.
No. 332.
No. 333.
No. 334.
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. et al.; Union Pacific Railroad Co. et al. v. United States et al.; and United States et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. et al. Washington Public Service Commission et al. v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. et al.; Union Pacific Railroad Co. et al. v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. et al.; and United States et al. v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. et al.
Frank E. Holman, Dennis McCarthy and Robert E. Quirk for the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. Don Eastvold, Attorney General of Washington, Clarence S. Beck, Attorney General of Nebraska, Bert L. Overcash, C. W. Ferguson and George F. Guy for the Washington Public Service Commission et al., appellants in Nos. 118 and 332 and appellees in Nos. 117 and 119; also with them in No. 118 was Howard B. Black, Attorney General of Wyoming. Elmer B. Collins, L. E. Torinus, Roland J. Lehman and James C. Wilson for the Union Pacific Railroad Co. et al., appellants in Nos. 118 and 333 and appel-lees in Nos. 117 and 119. Solicitor General Sobeloff for appellants in Nos. 119 and 334, with whom were Edward M. Reidy and Neil Brooks in No. 119 and Assistant Attorney General Barnes, Daniel M. Friedman and Samuel R. Howell in No. 334. John R. Barry for the Public Service Commission of Utah et al., William J. Hickey for the American Short Line Railroad Association, and Lee J. Quasey for the National Live Stock Producers Association et al., appellees in Nos. 332 and 333.
[MAJORITY]
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska; and
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. In these cases probable jurisdiction is noted.
Reported below: Nos. 117, 118 and 119, 132 P. Supp. 72; Nos. 332, 333 and 334, 131 F. Supp. 372.