green
Positive treatment
4.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1960 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1960
1993
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Montgomery County
(2×)
See United States v. Livingston, 179 F.Supp. 9,12 (D.S.C.1959, three-judge court, opinion by Haynsworth, J.), aff'd, 364 U.S. 281 , 80 S.Ct. 1611 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 (I960). 6 It must not be ignored, however, that Judge Northrop apparently appreciated that, on his view of the statute’s meaning, he had avoided a constitutional confrontation by his determination that the United States was not a person.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Montgomery County, Maryland
(2×)
See United States v. Livingston, 179 F.Supp. 9, 12 (D.S.C.1959, three-judge court, opinion by Haynsworth, J.), aff'd, 364 U.S. 281 , 80 S.Ct. 1611 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 (1960). 6 8 It must not be ignored, however, that Judge Northrop apparently appreciated that, on his view of the statute's meaning, he had avoided a constitutional confrontation by his determination that the United States was not a person.
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. District of Columbia
(4×)
See United States v. Livingston, 179 F.Supp. 9, 22 (E.D.S.C.1959) (three judge court), aff’d per curiam, 364 U.S. 281 , 80 S.Ct. 1611 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 (1960).
discussed
Cited "see"
Group Assisting Sewer Proposal-Ansonia v. City of Ansonia
(2×)
See United States v. Livingston, 179 F.Supp. 9, 15 (E.D.S.C. 1959), aff’d, 364 U.S. 281 , 80 S.Ct. 1611 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 (1960); Hopkins v. Southern California Tel.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sovereign News Co. v. Falke
(2×)
See, United States v. Livingston, 179 F.Supp. 9, 12-13 (E.D.S.C.1959), aff’d, Livingston v. United States, 364 U.S. 281 , 80 S.Ct. 1611 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 (1960), quoted authoritatively in Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. supra, at 250-251, 88 S.Ct. 391 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Abraham v. Hodges
(2×)
See also United States v. Livingston, 179 F.Supp. 9, 16 (E.D.S.C.1959), aff'd per curiam, 364 U.S. 281 , 80 S.Ct. 1611 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 (1960) (finding “the explosion [at] ...
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Barrows v. Reddin
(2×)
See also Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 at 376, n. 11 , 84 S.Ct. 1316 , 12 L.Ed.2d 377 (1964) quoting United States v. Livingston, 179 F. Supp. 9 (D.C.E.D.S.C.) aff’d 364 U.S. 281 , 80 S.Ct. 1611 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 .
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Interstate Investors, Inc. v. United States
(3×)
Co. v. United States, 281 U.S. 479 , 50 S.Ct. 378 , 74 L.Ed. 980 (1930); compare Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. United States, 179 F.Supp. 605, 614 (D.Del.1959), modified on other grounds, 364 U.S. 280 , 80 S.Ct. 1611 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 (1960).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
LUCKENBACH STEAMSHIP CO., INC.,
v.
UNITED STATES Et Al.
v.
UNITED STATES Et Al.
848.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 27, 1960.
Mark P. Schlefer, John Cunningham and Israel Convisser for appellant., Solicitor General Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Bicks, Charles H. Weston, Robert W. Ginnane and H. Neil Garson, for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission, appellees; Jeremiah C. Waterman, Edward M. Reidy and Raymond A. Negus for other appellees.
Black, Pennsylvania.
Cited by 25 opinions | Published
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, so far as it relates to the suspension of rates phase of the dispute, is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the cause as moot. United States v. Amarillo-Borger Express, 352 U. S. 1028; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Dixie Carriers, 355 U. S. 179. With respect to the antitrust phase of the dispute, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent on the holding of Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 U. S. 439.