D'Amico v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
D'AMICO v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO.
D'Amico v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 386 U.S. 544 (1967)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The motion to dispense with printing the jurisdictional statement is granted. The motion to dismiss is also granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 22 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- United States v. United States
- United States v. United States
- Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. United States
- Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Railway Labor Executives' Association v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, People of the State of Illinois, Illinois Commerce Commission, Patrick W
- Soo Line Railroad Company v. United States
- Movers' & Warehousemen's Ass'n of America v. United States
Most recent
- U.S. Claims OPCO, L.L.C. v. Wells-Niklas
- Southern Pacific Transportation Company and St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, Union Pacific Corporation, and Chicago & North Western Transportation Company
- Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Triton Oil & Gas Corporation
- 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 Vermont
- Lamoille Valley Railroad v. Interstate Commerce Commission
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.