United States District Court D. Montana, Helena Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
June 23, 1953.
June 23, 1953.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Arnold H. Olsen, Atty. Gen. of Montana, H. M. Brickett, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Montana, Edwin S. Booth, Secretary-Counsel, Board of Railroad Com'rs, and Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. of Montana, for the State of Montana and others.
Milton C. Gunn, Helena, Mont., Lewis, Grant, Newton, Davis & Henry and Donald S. Graham, Denver, Colo., for intervening plaintiff American Crystal Sugar Co.
Milton C. Gunn, Helena, Mont., Martin & Holt and Edward A. Walsh, Denver, Colo., for intervening plaintiff Great Western Sugar Co.
Milton C. Gunn, Helena, Mont., Dennis O'Rourke, Colorado Springs, Colo., for intervening plaintiff Holly Sugar Corp.
Edmond G. Toomey and Michael J. Hughes, Helena, Mont., for intervening plaintiffs Montana Stockgrowers Ass'n and Montana Woolgrowers Ass'n.
E. Riggs McConnell, Frank F. Vesper, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., Newell A. Clapp, Acting Asst. to the Atty. Gen., James E. Kilday, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., Dalton Pierson, U. S. Atty. for Montana, Butte, Mont., for the United States.
Edward M. Reidy, Chief Counsel, and Leo H. Pou, Asst. Chief Counsel, Washington, D. C., for intervening defendant Interstate Commerce Commission.
Marcellus L. Countryman, Jr., Conrad Olson, Edwin C. Matthias, Louis E. Torinus, Jr., and John C. Smith, St. Paul, Minn., Carson L. Taylor and Thomas H. Maguire, Chicago, Ill., Byron E. Lutterman, Seattle, Wash., Elmer B. Collins, Omaha, Neb., Eldon M. Martin, Chicago, Ill. (Robert D. Corette, Butte, Mont., Newell Gough, Jr., Helena, Mont., of counsel), for intervening defendants Railroad Companies.
Before POPE, Circuit Judge, PRAY, Chief Judge, and MURRAY, District Judge.
United States District Court D. Montana, Helena Division.
PER CURIAM.
This case has been heard further pursuant to the per curiam decision of the Supreme Court, Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. State of Montana, 344 U.S. 905, 73 S.Ct. 329, which vacated our former judgment, State of Mont. v. U. S., 106 F.Supp. 786, and remanded the case "for further proceedings in the light of King v. United States, 344 U.S. 254, 73 S.Ct. 259," which was decided on the...
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.
