Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

United States Vs. Atchison

United States vs Atchison

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jun-20-1966
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/101342

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
384 U.S. 888
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Atchison

Excerpt

united states v. atchison - 384 u.s. 888 (1966) u.s. supreme court united states v. atchison, 384 u.s. 888 (1966) 384 u.s. 888 united states et al. v. atchison, topeka & santa fe railway co. et al. appeal from the united states district court for the southern district of california. no. 576. decided june 20, 1966. 238 f. supp. 528, partially vacated and remanded to district court with instructions to dismiss portions of the judgment as moot. solicitor general marshall, assistant attorney general turner, robert b. hummel, jerry z. pruzansky, robert w. ginnane and arthur j. cerra for the united states et al. douglas f. smith, howard j. trienens, george l. saunders, jr., john e. mccullough, s. r. brittingham, jr., charles w. burkett, monroe e. clinton, frank s. farrell, alan c. furth, lawrence w. hobbs, thormund a. miller, robert l. pierce, e. p. porter, l. e. torinus, jr., and e. l. van dellen for appellees, atchison, topeka & santa fe railway co. et al. per curiam. upon consideration of the memorandum of certain appellees and an examination of the entire record, so much of the judgment of the district court as respects the portions of the orders of the interstate commerce commission dated march 21, 1963, and december 31, 1963, as were vacated by orders of the commission of january 7, 1966, and march 17, 1966, and two orders of april 13, 1966, is vacated and to that extent the cause is remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss such portions of the judgment as moot. [for order noting probable jurisdiction, see 383 u.s. 964.] page 384 u.s. 888, 889

Full Judgment

UNITED STATES v. ATCHISON - 384 U.S. 888 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. ATCHISON, 384 U.S. 888 (1966) 384 U.S. 888

UNITED STATES ET AL. v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA. No. 576.
Decided June 20, 1966.

238 F. Supp. 528, partially vacated and remanded to District Court with instructions to dismiss portions of the judgment as moot.

Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Robert B. Hummel, Jerry Z. Pruzansky, Robert W. Ginnane and Arthur J. Cerra for the United States et al.

Douglas F. Smith, Howard J. Trienens, George L. Saunders, Jr., John E. McCullough, S. R. Brittingham, Jr., Charles W. Burkett, Monroe E. Clinton, Frank S. Farrell, Alan C. Furth, Lawrence W. Hobbs, Thormund A. Miller, Robert L. Pierce, E. P. Porter, L. E. Torinus, Jr., and E. L. Van Dellen for appellees, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the memorandum of certain appellees and an examination of the entire record, so much of the judgment of the District Court as respects the portions of the orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission dated March 21, 1963, and December 31, 1963, as were vacated by orders of the Commission of January 7, 1966, and March 17, 1966, and two orders of April 13, 1966, is vacated and to that extent the cause is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss such portions of the judgment as moot.

[For order noting probable jurisdiction, see 383 U.S. 964.]

Page 384 U.S. 888, 889



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial