1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 239 F.Supp.
  5. 239 F.Supp. 1 (1965)
 

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. v. HARDIN

Civ. A. No. 944.

239 F.Supp. 1 (1965)

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, the Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, and the Texas and Pacific Railway Company, Plaintiffs, v. Robert N. HARDIN, Prosecuting Attorney for the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Arkansas, successor in office to Lawson E. Glover, and John W. Goodson, Prosecuting Attorney for the Eighth Judicial Circuit of Arkansas, Defendants, and Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen, and Switchmen's Union of North America, Intervenors.

United States District Court W. D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division.

Probable Jurisdiction Noted June 7, 1965.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Clyde W. Fiddes, Roy P. Cosper, Tyler, Tex., Barrett, Wheatley, Smith & Deacon, Jonesboro, Ark., for St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.

Ernest D. Grinnell, St. Louis, Mo., Warner, Warner, Ragon & Smith, Fort Smith, Ark., for St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.

Martin L. Cassell, E. D. Curlee, Chicago, Ill., Wright, Lindsey, Jennings, Lester & Shults, Little Rock, Ark., for Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Co.

William E. Davis, Kansas City, Mo., Hardin, Barton, Hardin & Jesson, Fort Smith, Ark., for the Kansas City Southern Railway Co.

Mark M. Hennelly, R. W. Yost, St. Louis, Mo., Smith, Williams, Friday & Bowen, Little Rock, Ark., for The Texas and Pacific Railway Co. and the Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.

Bruce Bennett, Atty. Gen., Jack L. Lessenberry, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., John P. Gill, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., for defendants.

McMath, Leatherman, Woods & Youngdahl, Little Rock, Ark., for intervenors.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge, and MILLER and HENLEY, District Judges.

Probable Jurisdiction Noted June 7, 1965. See 85 S.Ct. 1802.

JOHN E. MILLER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment under the provisions of Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., is before the court for disposition. The parties have served and submitted elaborate and thorough briefs in support of their respective contentions, and none of the parties has requested oral argument, but in view of the extensive briefs, the court does not believe any useful purpose...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Citing Cases