green
Positive treatment
2.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
Genesco, Inc. v. JOINT COUNCIL 13, UNITED SHOE WKRS. OF AMER.
But see, Morton v. Local 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Union, 320 F.2d 505 (6th Cir.), cert, granted, 375 U.S. 939 , 84 S.Ct. 348 , 11 L.Ed.2d 270 (Dec. 9, 1963).
discussed
Cited "see"
Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. United States
Accord, Motion to Affirm at 8, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. United States, 375 U.S. 216 , 84 S.Ct. 341 , 11 L.Ed.2d 270 (1963): "The applicants raise no question as to the sufficiency of the conditions imposed by the Commission for the protection of their members or other employees of C & O and B & O who may be adversely affected by the transaction." While it is true that the union did in 1963 express concern for the welfare of employees of the C & O and B & O in the aftermath of the effectuation of the Commission's order, 221 F.Supp. at 29 , the union made no effort to link …
discussed
Cited "see"
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. United States
Accord, Motion to Affirm at 8, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. United States, 375 U.S. 216 , 84 S.Ct. 341 , 11 L.Ed.2d 270 (1963): “The applicants raise no question as to the sufficiency of the conditions imposed by the Commission for the protection of their members or other employees of C & O and B & O who may be adversely affected by the transaction.” While it is true that the union did in 1963 express concern for the welfare of employees of the C & O and B & O in the aftermath of the effectuation of the Commission’s order, 221 F.Supp. at 29 , the union made no effort to…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. United States
See Brotherhood of Railroad Maintenance Employees v. United States, 221 F.Supp. 19, 30 (E.D.Mich.), aff'd per curiam, 375 U.S. 216 , 84 S.Ct. 341 , 11 L.Ed.2d 270 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. United States
See Brotherhood of Railroad Maintenance Employees v. United States, 221 F.Supp. 19, 30 (E.D.Mich.), aff’d per curiam, 375 U.S. 216 , 84 S.Ct. 341 , 11 L.Ed.2d 270 .
cited
Cited "see"
Florida East Coast Railway Company v. United States
See Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. United States, D.C., 221 F.Supp. 19, 24 , aff’d mem., 375 U.S. 216 , 84 S.Ct. 341 , 11 L.Ed.2d 270 (1963). 41 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cole v. Hall
See also Morton v. Local 20, Teamsters, etc., 6 Cir. 1963, 320 F.2d 505 , cert. granted, 1963, 375 U.S. 939 , 84 S.Ct. 348 , 11 L.Ed.2d 270 ; United Mine Workers of America v. Meadow Creek Coal Co., 6 Cir. 1959, 263 F.2d 52 , as examples of joinder by reason of pendent jurisdiction of claims brought under Section 303 of the Act with claims under the state law founded upon the same material and operative facts.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
v.
UNITED STATES
v.
UNITED STATES
No. 510.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 9, 1963.
Clarence M. Mulholland, Richard R. Lyman, Edward J. Hickey, Jr., William O. Mahoney and Harry A. Carson for appellants in No. 510. Charles S. Rhyne, Edward D. Means, Jr. and Alfred J. Tighe for appellants in No. 511., Solicitor General Cox for the United States, and Robert W. Ginnane and Fritz R. Kahn for the Interstate Commerce Commission, appellees., Edward K. Wheeler, Hewitt 8. Biaett, Robert G. Seaks and Kenneth H. Ekin for appellee carriers.
Cited by 7 opinions | Published
Per Curiam.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.