Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Ry. Trainmen, 385 U.S. 20 (1966). · Go Syfert
Search
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Ry. Trainmen, 385 U.S. 20 (1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
83 citation events across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International (flsd, 1989-04-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see, e.g." Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International (3×)
S.D. Fla. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
National Labor Relations Board v. Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates Co., 130 F.2d 503, 505-06 (2d Cir.1942) (emphasis added); see also Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, 362 F.2d 649 , 654 & n. 5 (5th Cir.), aff'd, 385 U.S. 20 , 87 S.Ct. 226 , 17 L.Ed.2d 20 (1966). 14 The evidence which EASTERN most heavily relies upon consists of large-scale communications to its member pilots.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Burlington Northern Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (3×)
7th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 362 F.2d 649, 654-55 (5th Cir.), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 385 U.S. 20 , 87 S.Ct. 226 , 17 L.Ed.2d 20 (1966).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen and H. E. Gilbert v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Company (3×)
D.C. Cir. · 1967 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Bhd. of Railroad Trainmen v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 362 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. 1966), affirmed, 385 U.S. 20 , 87 S.Ct. 226 , 17 L.Ed.2d 20 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO. ET. AL.
v.
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY TRAINMEN ET AL.
220.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 24, 1966.
385 U.S. 20
Per Curiam.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.

Paul A. Porter and Dennis G. Lyons argued the cause for petitioners. With them on the briefs were Abe Krash and Daniel A. Rezneck.

Neal Rutledge and Allan Milledge argued the cause for respondents. With them on the brief was Lester P. Schoene.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

MR. JUSTICE FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.