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.
Columbia Terminals Co. v. Lambert et al., 1940 — 309 U.S. 620 · caselaw · US
General
Columbia Terminals Co. v. Lambert et al.
309 U.S. 620·Supreme Court of the United States·1940
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. 629.
Columbia Terminals Co. v. Lambert et al.
January 29, 1940.
Messrs. Guy A. Thompson and Charles M. Spence for appellant.
Messrs. James H. Linton, Daniel C. Rogers, and Edgar H. Wayman for appel-lees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam,:]
Per Curiam,:
The decree is vacated and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the complaint on the merits. Eichholz v. Public Service Commission, 306 U. S. 268; Welch Co. v. New Hampshire, 306 U. S. 79.