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.
CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILWAY COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. UNITED STATES, 1908 — 209 U.S. 90 · caselaw · US
General
CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILWAY COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. UNITED STATES
209 U.S. 9052 L. Ed. 698·Supreme Court of the United States·1908
Mr. Justice Moody took-no part in the disposition of this case.
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
CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILWAY COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. UNITED STATES.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 552.
Submitted January 22, 1908.
Decided March 16, 1908.
Decided on the authority of Armour Packing Company y. United States, ante, p. 56.
The facts are stated in the opinion.’
Mr. Frank Hagerman, Mr. J. C.. Cowin, Mr. A. R. Urion, Mr. Henry Feeder and Mr. M. W. Borders for petitioners.
The Attorney General, Mr. Milton D. Purdy, Assistant to the Attorney General, and Mr. A. S. Van Valkenburgh, United States Attorney, for the United States.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Day]
Mr. Justice Day
delivered the opinion of the court.
The counsel for the petitioner and the Solicitor General for the United States having filed a stipulation in writing in this cause, agreeing to abide the result of the Packing Company cases just decided (Nos. 467, 468, 469 and 470), it is hereby ordered that the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals in this case be
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Moody took-no part in the disposition of this case.
[DISSENT — Mr. Justice Brewer’s]
Mr. Justice Brewer’s
dissent in Armour Packing Co. v. United States, ante, p. 56, applied also to this case.