Legal Opinion

Lucking v. Detroit & Cleveland Nav. Co.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided November 7, 1922No. 3625PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKnappen, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). In our opinion the court below rightly maintained jurisdiction, as a court of the United States, over the case presented by the bill, and for the reasons assigned by the District Judge. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Rice, 247 U. S. 201, 203, 38 Sup. Ct. 429, 62 L. Ed. 1071; Greene v. Louisville & I. R. Co., 244 U. S. 499, 37 Sup. Ct. 673, 61 L. Ed. 1280, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 88. We also assume, for the purpose of this opinion, that the bill does not show a lack of sufficient interest in the party-complaining, especially as it is filed in the interest not only of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. Greene v. Louisville & Interurban RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  3. Terminal Taxicab Co. v. KutzSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  4. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Goodrich Transit Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1912
  5. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. RiceSupreme Court of the United States · 1918

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Lucking v. Detroit & Cleveland Navigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
  2. Farmers Grain Co. v. Toledo, P. & W. R. R.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 1946

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API