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.
Matson Navigation Co. v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc., et al.; and Federal Maritime Board et al. v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc., et al., 1960 — 363 U.S. 827 · caselaw · US
Admiralty
Matson Navigation Co. v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc., et al.; and Federal Maritime Board et al. v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc., et al.
363 U.S. 827·Supreme Court of the United States·1960
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
No. 906.
No. 907.
Matson Navigation Co. v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc., et al.; and Federal Maritime Board et al. v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc., et al.
Alvin J. Rockwell and Willis R. Deming for petitioner in No. 906. E. Robert Seaver, Robert E. Mitchell, Edward Aptaker and Edward Schmeltzer for the Federal Maritime Board et al., petitioners in No. 907. Solicitor General Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Bicks, Richard A. Solomon and Henry Geller for the.United States in opposition. Donald E. Van Koughnet for Pacific Far East Line, Inc., respondent.
[MAJORITY]
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 107 U. S. App. D. C. 155, 275 F. 2d 184.