1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 242 F.Supp.
  5. 242 F.Supp. 698 (1965)
 

CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC R. CO. v. UNITED STATES

Civ. A. No. 60-C-76.

242 F.Supp. 698 (1965)

CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY and Lake Superior and Ishpeming Railroad Company, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America and the Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants, Chicago and North Western Railway Company and Duluth South Shore and Atlantic Railroad Company, Intervening Defendants.

United States District Court E. D. Wisconsin.

June 3, 1965.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

R. K. Merrill, Joseph J. Nagle, and Frank M. Long, Chicago, Ill., Rodger S. Trump and Richardson R. Robinson, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Ry. Co.

Philip H. Porter, Madison, Wis., Bernard H. Davidson, Ishpeming, Mich., for plaintiff Lake Superior and Ishpeming R.R. Co.

Lee Loevinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Patrick M. Ryan, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., James B. Brennan, U. S. Atty., Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant United States.

Robert W. Ginnane, Gen. Counsel, and Arthur J. Cerra, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C., for defendant Interstate Commerce Commission.

Carl McGowan, Fred O. Steadry, Edgar Vanneman, Jr., and Charles H. Dickman, Chicago, Ill., Edward H. Borgelt and Roger S. Bessey, Milwaukee, Wis., for intervening defendant Chicago and North Western Ry. Co.

Thomas M. Beckley, Minneapolis, Minn., Reginald W. Nelson, Milwaukee, Wis., for intervening defendant Duluth, South Shore and Atlantic R.R. Co.

Before DUFFY, Circuit Judge, TEHAN, Chief Judge, and GRUBB, District Judge.

GRUBB, District Judge.

At the time this matter was presented to this court, prior to March 4, 1963, the parties briefed and argued two questions: (1) Whether the connection at Republic Junction was an extension of the lines or a spur or switch track within the State under § 1, par. (22) of Title 49 U.S.C.A., and (2) whether the order of the Commission denying a certificate of public convenience and necessity was supported by substantial evidence.

Because...

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