Newtex S.S. Corp. v. United States, 344 U.S. 901 (1952). · Go Syfert
Newtex S.S. Corp. v. United States, 344 U.S. 901 (1952). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: AW SCHAFFER v. United States (sdd, 1956-03-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1952 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1952 1989 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" AW SCHAFFER v. United States (2×)
D.S.D. · 1956 · signal: see · confidence high
See Newtex S. S. Corp. v. United States, D.C., S.D.N.Y., 107 F.Supp. 388 , affirmed 344 U.S. 901 , 73 S.Ct. 285 , 97 L.Ed. 696 ; Capital Transit Co. v. United States, D.C., D.C., 97 F.Supp. 614, 621 .” While the Commission in its final report changed its mind, this does not constitute reversible error subject to review by this court.
discussed Cited "see" Pacific Inland Tariff Bureau v. United States (2×)
D. Or. · 1955 · signal: see · confidence high
See Newtex S. S. Corp. v. United States, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 107 F.Supp. 388 , affirmed 344 U.S. 901 , 73 S.Ct. 285 , 97 L.Ed. 696 ; Capital Transit Co. v. United States, D.C.D.C., 97 F.Supp. 614, 621 .” In this case, unlike the Ward and Luck-enbach cases, the issue of whether the barge and truck lines could survive and whether their survival was necessary for agricultural marketing and national defense, was directly raised.
discussed Cited "see" Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. United States (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1954 · signal: see · confidence high
See Newtex S. S. Corp. v. United States, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 107 F.Supp. 388 , affirmed, 344 U.S. 901 , 73 S.Ct. 285 , 97 L.Ed. 696 ; Capital Transit Co. v. United States, D.C.D.C., 97 F.Supp. 614, 621 .
cited Cited "see" Newtex S. S. Corp. v. United States
S.D.N.Y. · 1952 · signal: see · confidence high
See 73 S.Ct. 285 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Newtex Steamship Corp.
v.
United States
No. 458.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 15, 1952.
344 U.S. 901
S. S. Eisen for appellants., Acting Solicitor General Stern and Edward M. Reidy for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission; Harold B. Finn and John C. White for the Harris County Houston Ship Channel Navigation District et al.; and Mr. Finn and Warren Price, Jr. for the Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corporation, appellees.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Per Curiam:

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.