Legal Opinion · Dissent

Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Company v. United States

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided December 29, 1966No. 66 Civ. 2860, 66 Civ. 2903, 66 Civ. 2914Published

1DissentWeinfeld, District Judge

(dissenting) :

I am of the view that the reeision of one of the conditions and the reopening for further consideration of the other conditions originally imposed by the *982Commission for the protection of the three carrier plaintiffs, the Erie-Lacka-wanna (E-L), Delaware & Hudson (D&H) and Boston & Maine (B&M), (the protected carriers), as a prerequisite to the consummation of the merger requires the granting of the interlocutory injunction.

The elimination in advance of the merger of a substantial “term and condition” and the reopening of others, all of which the Commission itself deemed…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
  3. Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. Federal Power CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1958
  4. United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific R.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
  5. Federal Power Commission v. Idaho Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952

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

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

Powered by the Exa API