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.
Interstate Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Messner, Secretary of the Department of Revenue, et al.; and Shirks Motor Express Corp. v. Messner, Secretary of the Department of Revenue, et al., 1954 — 347 U.S. 941 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Interstate Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Messner, Secretary of the Department of Revenue, et al.; and Shirks Motor Express Corp. v. Messner, Secretary of the Department of Revenue, et al.
347 U.S. 941·Supreme Court of the United States·1954
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
April 12, 1954.
No. 606.
No. 615.
Interstate Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Messner, Secretary of the Department of Revenue, et al.; and Shirks Motor Express Corp. v. Messner, Secretary of the Department of Revenue, et al.
Frank A. Sinon for appellants.
John R. Norris was also for appellant in No. 615. Frank F. Truscott, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and Harry F. Stambaugh for appellees.
Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases in which orders are this day announced.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The motions to dismiss are granted and the appeals are dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 375 Pa. 450, 100 A. 2d 913.