Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio
Motion for a preliminary restraining order in proceedings to enforce compliance with an order of the' interstate commerce commission.
1Opinion of the CourtSage, District Judge
(orally). The motion for a preliminary restraining order, to continue in force until the hearing and decree in this case, must be overruled for the following reasons:
1. A like motion, made upon the filing of the petition in the case of Shinkle, Wilson & Kreis Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 62 Fed. 690, on the same order of the commission as is here involved, was overruled by Judge Lurton, of the circuit court, after full argument.
2. Independently of the fact that Judge Lurton has passed upon the question involved, this is not a case for a preliminary injunction. The question to be considered…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. BrimsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Shinkle v. Louisville & N. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1894
3Cited by5 opinions
- Western New York & P. R. Co. v. Penn Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1905
- Studna v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1964
- Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington · 1897
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. McDavidCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. McDavidCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918