United States District Court D. Montana, Helena Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
August 13, 1952.
August 13, 1952.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Arnold H. Olsen, Atty. Gen. of Montana, H. M. Brickett, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Montana, and Edwin S. Booth, Secretary-Counsel of the Board of Railroad Commissioners of Montana and Special Asst. Atty. Gen. of Montana, for plaintiff.
Lewis, Grant, Newton, Davis & Henry, Donald S. Graham, Denver, Colo., for American Crystal Sugar Co.
Martin & Holt, Edward A. Walsh, Denver, Colo., for Great Western Sugar Co.
Dennis O'Rourke, Lowe P. Siddons, Colorado Springs, Colo., for Holly Sugar Co.
Milton C. Gunn, Helena, Mont., for all sugar companies.
Edmond G. Toomey and Michael J. Hughes, Helena, Mont., for intervening plaintiffs Montana Stockgrowers Ass'n, Inc., and Montana Wool Growers Ass'n.
E. Riggs McConnell, Special Asst. to the Atty. Gen. for United States. Leo H. Pou, Asst. Chief Counsel, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C., and Edward M. Reidy, Chief Counsel, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C., James E. Kilday, Special Asst. to the Atty. Gen. and Dalton Pierson, U. S. Atty., Butte Mont., for defendants United States and Interstate Commerce Commission.
Marcellus L. Countryman, Jr., Conrad Olson, St. Paul, Minn. (Edwin C. Matthias, John C. Smith, Louis E. Torinus, Jr., St. Paul, Minn., Carson L. Taylor, Thomas H. Maguire, Chicago, Ill., Byron E. Lutterman, Seattle, Wash., Elmer B. Collins, Asst. Western General Counsel, Union Pacific Railroad, Omaha, Neb., Eldon M. Martin, Chicago, Ill.; and Robert D. Corette, Butte, Mont., and Newell Gough, Jr., Helena, Mont., of counsel), for intervening defendant Railroad Companies.
Before POPE, Circuit Judge, PRAY, Chief Judge, and MURRAY, District Judges.
United States District Court D. Montana, Helena Division.
PER CURIAM.
In an opinion filed July 24, 1952, D.C., 106 F.Supp. 778, we stated the issues involved in this proceeding and our conclusions upon some of them. We called attention to the fact that the court was unable to discover that the Interstate Commerce Commission, here called the Commission, had made in connection with its order here under review, or in its proceeding designated as Ex Parte 168, which preceded the Commission...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
