Legal Opinion
New York Central Railroad Company v. United States
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided June 14, 1961PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge.
This is an action by the New York Central Railroad, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1336, 2284 and 2321-2325, to enjoin orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission, in I. & S. Docket No. 7250, 313 I.C.C. 247, directing the Central to cancel tariffs, which had become effective due to expiration of the seven months’ period of suspension, 49 U.S.C.A. § 15(7), establishing reduced commodity rates on rugs and carpeting in carloads from Amsterdam, New York to Chicago, Illinois. Judge Palmieri declined to grant a temporary restraining order; the case is now before us on application for final…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific R.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Federal Trade Commission v. R. F. Keppel & Bro. Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Federal Maritime Board v. Isbrandtsen Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Iowa Power & Light Co. v. Burlington Northern, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1981
- National Gypsum Co.(Huron Cement Div.) v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1973
- Iowa Power and Light Company, a Corporation v. Burlington Northern, Inc., a Corporation, Iowa Power and Light Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, and Burlington Northern, Inc., Intervenor-Respondent (Two Cases). Iowa Power and Light Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Burlington Northern, Inc., Intervenor-Respondent. Burlington Northern, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Iowa Power and Light Company, Intervenor-RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1981