Legal Opinion
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Southern Pac. Co.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided June 1, 1903No. 1,039PublishedCited by 3 opinions
In Equity. On demurrers to bill.
1Opinion of the Court
WELLBORN, District Judge.
This suit is brought, under section i6 of the interstate commerce act (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c, 104, 24 Stat. 384 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3167]), to enforce the following orders entered by the Interstate Commerce Commission at its office in Washington, D. C., on the 2d day of June, A. D. 1902:
“No. 575.
“The Consolidated Forwarding Company v. The Southern Pacific Company, The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company, The Santa Fé Pacific Railway Company, and The Southern California Railway Company.
“No. 576.
“The Southern California Fruit Exchange v. The Southern Pacific…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- United States v. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Lehnen v. DicksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. Southern Railway Co.District Court, M.D. Georgia · 1974
- Tennessee Public Service Co. v. City of KnoxvilleTennessee Supreme Court · 1936
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. Southern Pac. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · 1904