TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. United States

RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES’ ASSOCIATION Et Al. v. UNITED STATES Et Al.

Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n v. United States, 379 U.S. 199 (1964)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
December 14, 1964
Docket
No. 130
Judges
Per Curiam
Citations
379 U.S. 19985 S. Ct. 30713 L. Ed. 2d 3381964 U.S. LEXIS 64

Opinion — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

This appeal is from a judgment of a three-judge District Court, 226 F. Supp. 521 , dismissing appellants’ complaint to set aside orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 317 I. C. C. 557, 729, relating to the Southern Railway Company’s acquisition of control through stock, ownership of the Central of Georgia Railway Company. Appellants, representing railway employees, object that under the Commission’s orders, the employees are not protected as provided by §§ 4, 5, *200 and 0 of the Washington Job Protection- Agreement. We agree with the suggestion of the Solicitor General that this case should be remanded to the Interstate Commerce Commission for clarification of its orders insofar as they relate to the agreement. For this reason, the motion of the Interstate Commerce Commission to affirm the judgment of the District Court is denied. The motion of intervenor-appellees Southern Railway Company and Central of Georgia Railway Company to defer consideration of the jurisdictional statement is denied. Appellants’ motion to limit the appeal to questions related to §§ 4, 5, and 9 of' the Washington Job Piocection Agreement is granted. The judgment oí the District Court is vacated insofar as it relates to §§ 4, 5, and 9 of the Washington Agreement, and this case is remanded to that court with instructions to remand it to the Interstate Commerce Commission with instructions to amend its reports and orders as necessary to deal with appellants’ request that § § 4, 5, and 9 be included as protective conditions, specifically indicating why each of these provisions is either omitted or included. See United States v. Chicago, M., St. P.

& Pac. R. Co., 294 U. S. 499, 511 .

Vacated and remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →
1965: 41966: 11967: 21968: 21977: 21979: 11983: 21985: 11990: 119652026peak 1965 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Florida East Coast Railway Company v. United States259 F. Supp. 993 (M.D. Fla. 1966)
  2. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. United States571 F.2d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 1977) · Dissent
  3. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. United States571 F.2d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
  4. New York Dock Railway and Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission609 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1979)
  5. Lamoille Valley Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Guilford Transportation Industries, Inc., Robert W. Meserve and Benjamin H. Lacy, Trustees of the Property of Boston and Maine Corporation, Debtor, Eastern Magnesia Talc Company, State of Vermont711 F.2d 295 (D.C. Cir. 1983)
  6. Soo Line Railroad Company v. United States280 F. Supp. 907 (D. Minnesota 1968)

Most recent

  1. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America920 F.2d 40 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
  2. Jackson v. Lundy Packing Co.324 S.E.2d 290 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985)
  3. Lamoille Valley Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Guilford Transportation Industries, Inc., Robert W. Meserve and Benjamin H. Lacy, Trustees of the Property of Boston and Maine Corporation, Debtor, Eastern Magnesia Talc Company, State of Vermont711 F.2d 295 (D.C. Cir. 1983)
  4. Lamoille Valley Railroad v. Interstate Commerce Commission711 F.2d 295 (D.C. Cir. 1983)
  5. New York Dock Railway and Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission609 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1979)
  6. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. United States571 F.2d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 1977)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. R., 294 U.S. 499 (1935) 296
Ry. Labor Executives'Ass'n v. United States, 226 F. Supp. 521 (E.D. Va. 1964) 16

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list