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.
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES et al. v. UNITED STATES et al., 1963 — 375 U.S. 216 · caselaw · US
General
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
375 U.S. 216·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
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
No. 510.
Decided December 9, 1963.
Clarence M. Mulholland, Richard R. Lyman, Edward J. Hickey, Jr., William O. Mahoney and Harry A. Carson for appellants in No. 510. Charles S. Rhyne, Edward D. Means, Jr. and Alfred J. Tighe for appellants in No. 511.
Solicitor General Cox for the United States, and Robert W. Ginnane and Fritz R. Kahn for the Interstate Commerce Commission, appellees.
Edward K. Wheeler, Hewitt 8. Biaett, Robert G. Seaks and Kenneth H. Ekin for appellee carriers.
Together with No. 511, Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes et al. v. United States et al., also on appeal from the same Court.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.