Citation network
Chicago Junction Case
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 03, 1924
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
-
of the evidence introduced at the hearing should have been annexed to the bill. Compare Louisiana & Pine Bluff Ry. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
known to the Commission, but not put in evidence, will not support an order. Interstate Commerce Commission v. LouisvilleSearch
-
that legislative character alone would not preclude judicial review. Rate orders are clearly legislative. Prentis v. AtlanticSearch
-
such authority, and to enjoin action by the carried thereunder. Page 264 U. S. 264 Skinner & Eddy Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 249 U. S. 557 , 249 U. S. 562 . Compare United States v. Merchants'Search
-
The order here challenged is wholly unlike those which have been held not subject to judicial review. In United States v. IllinoisSearch
-
In Proctor & Gamble v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 225 U. S. 282 , Hooker v. KnappSearch
-
U. S. 302 , and Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
the order complained of is an affirmative one -- that is, it grants the relief sought. Compare Manufacturers' Ry. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
to an annual loss in net earnings of approximately that amount. If, as suggested in Interstate Commerce Commission v. PageSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
such an interest here. This loss is not the incident of more effective competition. Compare Edward Hines Trustees v. UnitedSearch
-
To such treatment carriers are, under the Interstate Commerce Act, as fully entitled as any shipper. Pennsylvania Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
the New York Central to exclude all other carriers from use of the terminals. Compare Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Manufacturers' Ry. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
such suits where the requisite interest was shown. Interstate Commerce Commission Page 264 U. S. 269 v. DiffenbaughSearch
-
Skinner & Eddy Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
suit had been brought by the United States, the court could have given the complete relief prayed for. United States v. UnionSearch
-
United States v. UnionSearch
-
situation of none of the defendants appears to have been affected by the brief lapse of time. Compare United States v. SouthernSearch
-
The docket title of this case is Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company et al. v. UnitedSearch
-
Compare Interstate Commerce Commission v. WasteSearch
-
Merchants Assn., 260 U. S. 32 . The mandamus was granted in Interstate Commerce Commission v. HumboldtSearch
-
Steamship Co., 224 U. S. 474 , and Louisville Cement Co. v. InterstateSearch
-
S. 638 , because the Commission erroneously refused to assume jurisdiction. See also Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. InterstateSearch
-
Trenton R. Co. v. StimpsonSearch
-
par. 1, Interstate Commerce Commission v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Florida East Coast Line v. UnitedSearch
-
par. 1, compare New York v. UnitedSearch
-
par. 9, United States v. BaltimoreSearch
-
See Miller v. UnitedSearch
-
Peoria & Pekin Union Ry. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
are permitted to intervene, and thus become parties, and persons who are merely permitted to be heard. See Hurlburt v. LakeSearch
-
From its inception, the Commission has construed liberally this right to complain. See Boston & Albany R. Co. v. BostonSearch
-
operation of the fourth section -- resembles in character that here in question. See also Nashville Grain Exchange v. UnitedSearch
-
Atlantic Coast Line v. InterstateSearch
-
Commerce Commission, 194 F. 449. Merchants' & Manufacturers' Traffic Association v. UnitedSearch
-
McLean Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
City of New York v. UnitedSearch
-
Village of Hubbard v. UnitedSearch
-
Tennessee v. UnitedSearch
-
Ry. v. TennesseeSearch
-
Detroit & M. Ry. Co. v. BoyneSearch
-
City, G. & A. R. Co., 286 F. 540, 548. In Edward Hines Trustees v. UnitedSearch
-
the bill was dismissed because it failed to disclose any interest in the plaintiff. Cases like Railroad Co. v. EllermanSearch
-
Act, have no bearing on the question here presented. The contention that, under the principle applied in Muskrat v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial