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, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. v. ILLINOIS et al., 1959 — 359 U.S. 534 · caselaw · US
General
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. v. ILLINOIS et al.
359 U.S. 534·Supreme Court of the United States·1959
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, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. v. ILLINOIS et al.
No. 793.
Decided May 25, 1959.
Edwin R. Eckersall and R. K. Merrill for appellant.
Latham Castle, Attorney General of Illinois, and Harry R. Begley, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Illinois and the Illinois Commerce Commission, and S. Ashley Guthrie and .Francis D. Fisher for the Milwaukee Road Commuters’ Association, appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per' Curiam.]
Per' Curiam.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.