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.
BALTIMORE & OHIO CHICAGO TERMINAL RAILROAD CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES et al., 1967 — 389 U.S. 88 · caselaw · US
General
BALTIMORE & OHIO CHICAGO TERMINAL RAILROAD CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
389 U.S. 88·Supreme Court of the United States·1967
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
BALTIMORE & OHIO CHICAGO TERMINAL RAILROAD CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
No. 539.
Decided November 6, 1967.
John H. Gobel for appellants.
Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Robert W. Ginnane and Nahum Litt for the United States et al., and Don McDevitt for Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe et al., appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.