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.
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF KANSAS et al. v. ARROW TRANSPORTATION CO. et al., 1960 — 361 U.S. 353 · caselaw · US
Corporations
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF KANSAS et al. v. ARROW TRANSPORTATION CO. et al.
361 U.S. 353·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
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF KANSAS et al. v. ARROW TRANSPORTATION CO. et al.
No. 526.
Decided January 18, 1960
Byron M. Gray for appellants in No. 526.
B. W. Henriott and M. L. Cassell for appellants in No. 527.
Robert W. Ginnane and Isaac K. Hay for appellant in No. 528.
MacDonald Gallion, Attorney General' of Alabama, George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, Donald Macleay, George .Shuff, John A.' Caddell and Charles J. McCarthy for appellees.
Together with No. 527, Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. et al. v. Arrow Transportation Co. et al., and No. 528, Interstate Commerce Commission v. Arrow Transportation Co. et al., also on appeals from the same Court.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.