Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Baker
District Court, W.D. Washington
1Opinion of the CourtCushman, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
Because of the fact that certain shippers who shipped logs after the issuance of the interlocutory injunction and prior to the filing of the tariffs so reducing log rates were not parties to the settlement, they would have a right of action upon the bonds given by plaintiffs at the time of securing the interlocutory injunction, should such injunction have been wrongfully granted. For this reason, despite the fact of the filing of such later tariffs reducing rates, the present suit has not become moot. Groesbeck v. Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Greene v. Louisville & Interurban RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Florida v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Wichita Railroad & Light Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- State of Florida v. United States Brooks-Scanlon Corporation v. Same. Wilson Lumber Co. Of Florida v. SameSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. McCueSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State ex rel. Puget Sound Navigation Co. v. Department of TransportationWashington Supreme Court · 1949
- Valley & Siletz Railroad v. ThomasOregon Supreme Court · 1935
- Roco Refining Co. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1936
- Applestein v. KleinhendlerDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2025
- Asociación de Dueños de Casas Veraniegas de la Parguera v. Comisión de Servicio PúblicoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1976
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.