Legal Opinion
Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Jackson
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided November 17, 1927No. 4888PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoorman, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The right of plaintiff to an injunction depends on what would be the effect of the threatened acts if permitted to be consummated. This is to be considered in the light of the Transportation Act of 1920, the main purpose of which was to permit the consolidation of railway properties in the United States into a limited number of systems in the interest of economical and efficient railway service. • To that end Congress conferred upon the Interstate Commerce Commission enlarged powers, and imposed upon it the duty of evolving plans for, without giving it the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- The Chicago Junction CaseSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Cruickshank v. BidwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- American Grain Separator Co. v. Twin City Separator Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1912
- Southern Pac. Co. v. EarlCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1897
- Allison v. CorsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1898
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Otis & Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1945
- Mississippi River Fuel Corp. v. SlaytonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1966
- Oscar Gruss & Son v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1966
- Wheeling & L. E. Ry. Co. v. Pittsburgh & W. v. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1929
- New York Central Securities Corp. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1931
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.