Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

County of Marin v. United States

District Court, N.D. California

Decided April 12, 1957No. Civ. A. 34985Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHarris, District Judge

(Defendants in intervention Golden Gate Transit Lines and Pacific Greyhound Lines shall be hereinafter referred to as “Golden Gate” and “Pacific” respectively, as in the majority opinion.)

I concur in the majority opinion upholding the jurisdiction of the Commission. I dissent in the refusal of the Court to grant plaintiffs permission to amend the complaint regarding the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence.

The motion to amend the complaint and the proposed amendment itself must be considered in the light of the historical events and proceedings conducted by the defendant in intervention,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
  2. Maryland Casualty Co. v. RickenbakerCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1944
  3. Lloyd v. United Liquors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1953
  4. United States v. Ohio Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1957
  5. Breswick & Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1956

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API