Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Boston & Maine R.R., 373 U.S. 372 (1963). · Go Syfert
Search
Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Boston & Maine R.R., 373 U.S. 372 (1963). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1981 · …rules and regulations promulgated by governmental establishments pursuant to statutory authority have the force and effect of law, and concededly are subject to the same tests as statutes. ⚠ not in text
39 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dankman v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics (dc, 1981-10-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1963 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1963 1994 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Dankman v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics (2×)
D.C. · 1981 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
rules and regulations promulgated by governmental establishments pursuant to statutory authority have the force and effect of law, and concededly are subject to the same tests as statutes.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
v.
Boston & Maine Railroad Maryland Port Authority v. Boston & Maine Railroad Interstate Commerce Commission v. Boston & Maine Railroad
97.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 17, 1963.
373 U.S. 372
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 58%
Citer courts: District of Columbia Court of … (2)

373 U.S. 372

83 S.Ct. 1312

10 L.Ed.2d 419

BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. et al.
v.
BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD et al. MARYLAND PORT AUTHORITY et al. v. BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD et al. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD et al.

Nos. 97, 98, and 99.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 1963

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1963.

See 374 U.S. 859, 83 S.Ct. 1862.

Robert W. Ginnane, Washington, D. C., Jervis Langdon, Jr., and William L. Marbury, Baltimore, Md., for appellants.

J. William Doolittle, Washington, D. C., Thomas E. Dewey, New York City, and Robert G. Bleakney, Jr., Sudbury, Mass., for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

[*~372]1

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

[*~373]2

Mr. Justice WHITE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.