Legal Opinion

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cheesebrough

District Court, D. Minnesota

Decided April 29, 1948No. Civ. A. No. 1075PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BELL, District Judge.

The defendant Harvey Cheesebrough (hereafter called Cheesebrough) maintains his principal place of business at Minneapolis, Minnesota. He does not have a certificate of public convenience and necessity or a permit issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission authorizing him to engage in the transportation of property as a common or contract carrier by motor vehicle and his lack of authority was at all times known to the defendant Waldorf Paper Products Company (hereafter called Waldorf).

The defendant Waldorf at all times was a corporation duly organized and existing under…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. United States v. La Tuff Transfer Service, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1950
  2. Interstate Commerce Commission v. IsnerDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1950
  3. Briggs Transfer Co. v. National Butter Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1952
  4. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Agricultural Cooperative Ass'nDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 1964
  5. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Schultz Transit, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API