Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Arrow Transp. Co. Vs. Southern Ry. Co.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 15, 1963

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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

70 entries 70 unlinked
Show
  1. Arrow Transp. Co. v. Southern
    Search
  2. Ry. Co. - 372 U.S. 658 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Arrow Transp. Co. v. Southern
    Search
  3. Ry. Co., 372 U.S. 658 (1963) Arrow Transportation Co. v. Southern
    Search
  4. Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Inland
    Search
  5. This Court has previously indicated its view that the present section had that effect. In Board of Railroad Comm'rs v. Great
    Search
  6. a jurisdiction to which this Court had, even in 1910, already given the fullest recognition. Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene
    Search
  7. power which we have found was extinguished when the suspension power was vested in the Commission. Cf. United States v. Borden
    Search
  8. disclose the judicial uncertainty about the availability of any equitable relief. Compare, e.g., Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Pacific
    Search
  9. Jewett Bros. & Jewett v. Chicago
    Search
  10. M. & St. P. R. Co., 156 F. 160 (C.C.D.S.D.1907), with, e.g., Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Macon
    Search
  11. and Wickwire Steel Co. v. New
    Search
  12. E.g., M. C. Kiser Co. v. Central
    Search
  13. Freeport Sulphur Co v. United
    Search
  14. Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. United
    Search
  15. Manhattan Transit Co. v. United
    Search
  16. States, 24 F.Supp. 174, 177 (D.C.D.Mass.). See also Director General v. Viscose
    Search
  17. U.S. at 254 U. S. 502 . Cantlay & Tanzola, Inc. v. United
    Search
  18. Board of Railroad Comm'rs v. Great
    Search
  19. Director General v. Viscose
    Search
  20. See Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene
    Search
  21. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Pitcairn
    Search
  22. whether or not the petitioners' action rests upon claimed violations of the antitrust laws. Cf. Central Transfer Co. v. Terminal
    Search
  23. See, E.g., Carlsen v. United
    Search
  24. Bison S.S. Corp. v. United
    Search
  25. States, 179 F.Supp. 605 (D.C.D.Del.). But cf. Amarillo-Borger Express, Inc. v. United
    Search
  26. Seatrain Lines, Inc. v. United
    Search
  27. pending review of an agency's action through the prescribed statutory channels. Cf., e.g., Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Federal
    Search
  28. West India Fruit & S.S. Co. v. Seatrain
    Search
  29. Board of Governors v. Transamerica
    Search
  30. we have generally rejected such constructions of this and similar saving clauses, see, e.g., Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene
    Search
  31. T.I.M.E., Inc. v. United
    Search
  32. See North Carolina Natural Gas Corp. v. United
    Search
  33. j). Cf. Trans-Pacific Freight Conference v. Federal
    Search
  34. Schaffer Transportation Co. v. United
    Search
  35. Arrow Transportation Co. v. United
    Search
  36. States, 176 F.Supp. 411, 416 (D.C.N.D.Ala.), aff'd per curiam sub nom. State Corporation Comm'n v. Arrow
    Search
  37. where railroad rate activity has received approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission. See Dixie Carriers, Inc. v. United
    Search
  38. States, 351 U. S. 56 (1956), and Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Mechling
    Search
  39. U. S. 567 (1947). See also Arrow Transp. Co. v. United
    Search
  40. Supp. 411 (D.C.N.D.Ala.1959). And, just a few months ago, there was filed here in No. 746, Mechling Barge Lines, Inc. v. United
    Search
  41. Skinner & Eddy Corp. v. United
    Search
  42. Board of Trade of Chicago v. Illinois
    Search
  43. United States v. Illinois
    Search
  44. which is not inconsistent therewith is a strange way to dispose of judicial power. See Hewitt-Robins, Inc. v. Eastern
    Search
  45. in another forum. The cases do not support this conclusion where the other forum is either a court of law, Erhardt v. Boaro
    Search
  46. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Western
    Search
  47. Telegraph Co., 207 F. 1 (C.A.6th Cir., 1913), or an administrative agency. Trans-Pacific Freight Conf. of Japan v. Federal
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court Arrow Transp. Co. v. Southern
    Search
  49. Arrow Transportation Co. v. Southern
    Search
  50. In Board of Railroad Comm'rs v. Great
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial