The ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY et al., Petitioners, American Bakers Association et al., Intervenors-Petitioners,
v.
The UNITED STATES of America, the Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents, Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Intervenor-Respondent.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Submitted December 16, 1976.
Decided February 24, 1977.
Rehearing Denied March 31, 1977.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
R. Eden Martin, Chicago, Ill., for petitioners.
Peter M. Shannon, Jr., Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D.C., for respondent, Interstate Commerce Commission.
Harold E. Spencer, Chicago, Ill., for intervenor-respondent, Bd. of Trade of the City of Chicago.
Albert E. Schoenbeck, St. Louis, Mo., John J. Paylor, Cleveland, Ohio, John A. Daily, Philadelphia, Pa., Peter J. Hunter, Jr., Roanoke, Va., Howard J. Trienens, R. Eden Martin and James W. Jandacek, Chicago, Ill., Smith R. Brittingham, Jr., Virginia Beach, Va., Joseph D. Feeney, Chicago, Ill., for railroad petitioners.
Phil M. Cartmell, Jr., Kansas City, Mo., for Bd. of Trade of Kansas City, Mo., Inc., intervenor-petitioner.
Arthur L. Winn, Jr., Samuel H. Moerman and Paul M. Donovan, Washington, D.C., for Anheuser-Busch, Inc., intervenor-petitioner; LaRoe, Winn & Moerman, Washington, D.C., of counsel.
Frederick H. Mayer, St. Louis, Mo., John F. Donelan, and John K. Maser, III, Washington, D.C., for American Bakers Association, intervenor-petitioner.
Donald I. Baker, Asst. Atty. Gen., James Ponsoldt, Atty., I. C. C., Robert S. Burk, Acting Gen. Counsel, Charles H. White, Jr., Associate Gen. Counsel, Peter M. Shannon, Jr., Atty., I. C. C., Washington, D.C., for the United States and Interstate Commerce Commission, respondents.
Before STEPHENSON and HENLEY, Circuit Judges, and MEREDITH, District Judge.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
STEPHENSON, Circuit Judge.
Petitioners seek to review and set aside orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) declaring certain railroad rates for the shipment of wheat eastward from Chicago to be unlawfully discriminatory and directing that the discrimination be removed.1 The principal issue before us is whether the Commission erred in finding the rates to be discriminatory as a matter of law in violation of section 2 of 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.
