United States v. Hanley
District Court, N.D. Illinois
At Law. Indictments for violations of the interstate commerce act. Defendants move to quash the indictments.
1Opinion of the Court
GROSSCUP, District Judge.
These cases have been argued together on motions to quash the indictments. As they involve, in many features, the same questions, I will consider them together. The first and third counts of the indictment against Hanley and Reinhart were manifestly intended to charge the defendants with unjust discrimination under section 2 of the interstate commerce act. The second and fourth counts of the indictment were framed to bring the offenses within paragraph 2 of section 10 of the same act. The indictment against Morris was intended to bring his case within paragraph 4 of…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Armour Packing Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- United States v. New York Cent. & H. R. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1906
- United States v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Alton & S. R. R. v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1931
- United States v. Metropolitan Lumber Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1918
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.