Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Penn-central Merger Cases

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 15, 1968

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

67 entries 3 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. Bank of Kentucky Vs. Kentucky US Supreme Court · Dec 02, 1907
  2. Hansberry Vs. Lee US Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1940
  3. Hoffman Vs. Blaski US Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1960
  4. has not been changed. The only change has been in the means of achieving that goal. See generally St. Joe Paper Co. v. Atlantic
    Search
  5. annually. See Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United
    Search
  6. Its order was approved by a three-judge court in the Southern District of New York. Erie-Lackawanna R. Co. v. United
    Search
  7. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United
    Search
  8. accord with the statutory standards and are supported by substantial evidence. See, e.g., Illinois C. R. Co. v. Norfolk
    Search
  9. as the touchstone of economic regulation. Competition is merely one consideration here. See Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United
    Search
  10. multiplicity of litigation regarding the Commission's merger and inclusion decisions. Cf. Kansas City Southern, R. Co. v. United
    Search
  11. No. 778, Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. et al. v. United
    Search
  12. No. 779, Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. United
    Search
  13. No. 830, Oscar Gruss & Son v. United
    Search
  14. Bondholders Committee et al. v. United
    Search
  15. No. 832, Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Co. et al. v. United
    Search
  16. No. 833, Boston & Maine Corp. v. United
    Search
  17. No. 834, Reading Co. v. United
    Search
  18. No. 835, City of Scranton et al. v. United
    Search
  19. States et al., and No. 836, John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. et al. v. United
    Search
  20. States District Court for the Southern District of New York, argued December 4, 1967. No. 433, City of Pottsville v. United
    Search
  21. No. 663, Misc., Borough of Moosic v. United
    Search
  22. States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania et al., and No. 664, Misc., City of Scranton et al. v. United
    Search
  23. F.Supp. at 329. And appellants' attack upon the District Court's opinion on the basis of SEC v. Chenery
    Search
  24. We reject N & W's argument that the District Court was guilty of a violation of the rule of SEC v. Chenery
    Search
  25. Commission had been issued on June 9, 1967, following our remand last Term on March 27, 1967. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United
    Search
  26. Florida v. United
    Search
  27. United States v. Carolina
    Search
  28. with one of the parties litigating in the New York action. See, e.g., Lawlor v. National
    Search
  29. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Tisdale
    Search
  30. New York Central R. Co. v. United
    Search
  31. the parties in Pennsylvania, was here for review or was before the New York District Court. See Erie-Lackawanna R. Co. v. United
    Search
  32. New York court last Term that challenged the basic validity of the Penn-Central merger. ( See Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United
    Search
  33. or B & M in the N & W system -- none of which involved the community impact problem. Erie-Lackawanna R. Co. v. United
    Search
  34. In Hansberry v. Lee
    Search
  35. respond affirmatively to an invitation to intervene or else be bound by an adverse decision. Indeed, Chase Nation Bank v. Norwalk
    Search
  36. Our decisions in Hoffman v. Blaski
    Search
  37. U. S. 335 , and Van Dusen v. Barrack
    Search
  38. Holmes, J., dissenting, in Northern Securities Co. v. United
    Search
  39. interests before this Court contend that, under either the majority or dissenting opinions in St. Joe Paper Co. v. Atlantic
    Search
  40. Central system would require at least its submission to a vote of bondholders. See also Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Denver
    Search
  41. U. S. 495 . The bondholders also argue that the Commission ignored the admonition of this Court in Palmer v. Massachusetts
    Search
  42. In re v. Loewes
    Search
  43. Schwabacher v. United
    Search
  44. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Jackson
    Search
  45. Stott v. United
    Search
  46. St. Joe Paper Co. v. Atlantic
    Search
  47. See Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United
    Search
  48. the Southern District of New York. Erie-Lackawanna R. Co. v. United
    Search
  49. Illinois C. R. Co. v. Norfolk
    Search
  50. See Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial