Legal Opinion · Dissent

Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Illinois Et Al.

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided March 17, 1958Published

1Dissent

Mr. Justice Frankfurter,

whom

Mr. Justice Burton, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Whittaker join, dissenting.

The public interest, justice between the litigants, and the protection of our own appellate jurisdiction seem to me to require that petitioner’s application for a super-sedeas in this case be granted. The dispute underlying the application involves- .intrastate commuter fares on petitioner’s Chicago suburban service. The Interstate Commerce Commission, in proceedings under § 13 (4) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 24 Stat. 383, as amended, 41 Stat. 484, 49 U. S. C. § 13 (4), found…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. United States v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  3. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  4. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  5. Illinois v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API