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.
ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. et al. v. DIXIE CARRIERS, INC., et al., 1957 — 355 U.S. 179 · caselaw · US
General
ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. et al. v. DIXIE CARRIERS, INC., et al.
355 U.S. 179·Supreme Court of the United States·1957
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
ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. et al. v. DIXIE CARRIERS, INC., et al.
No. 60.
Decided December 9, 1957.
Robert H. Bierma, Richard J. Murphy and Harvey Huston for the Atchison; Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al., appellants in No. 60.
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen, Robert W. Ginnane and H. Neil Garson for the United States, appellant in No. 61, and the Interstate Commerce Commission, appellant in No. 62.
Donald Macleay, Harry C. Ames, Harry C. Ames, Jr., Nuel D. Belnap, T. S. Christopher and John C. Ridley for appellees.
Together with No. 61, United States v. Dixie Carriers, Inc., et al., and No. 62, Interstate Commerce Commission v. Dixie Carriers, Inc., et al., also on appeal from the same Court.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Upon the suggestion of mootness the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas is vacated and the case is remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.