Legal Opinion

Interstate Commerce Commission v. A. W. Stickle & Co.

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma

Decided September 12, 1941No. 368 — CivilPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RICE, District Judge.

The plaintiff, Interstate Commerce Commission, (hereinafter referred to as Commission), alleges that the defendant, A. W. Stickle & Company, a corporation (hereinafter referred to as Company), is engaged in the transportation of lumber in interstate commerce for compensation without having complied with the requirements of what is commonly known as the Motor Carrier Act 1935, 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 301-327 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Company contends that it is engaged primarily in the wholesale lumber business with its principal office at Oklahoma City, buying…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Piedmont & Northern Railway Co. v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. Interstate Commerce Commission v. A. W. Stickle & Co.District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · 1941

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Environmental Improvement Division v. Bloomfield Irrigation DistrictNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1989
  2. Eklund Bros. Transport, Inc. v. RittsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Env. Imp. Div. v. Bloomfield Irr. Dist.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1989
  4. Opinion No. 69-118 (1969) Ag, Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1969
  5. Public Utility Commission v. Atlantic Freight Lines, Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1954

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

Powered by the Exa API