Oscar Gruss & Son v. United States, 386 U.S. 776 (1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Oscar Gruss & Son v. United States, 386 U.S. 776 (1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
45 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. 729.773 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in Honolulu (hid, 1982-01-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" United States v. 729.773 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in Honolulu
D. Haw. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 32 , 75 S.Ct. 98, 102 , 99 L.Ed. 27 (1954) and Southern Pacific Land Company v. United States, 367 F.2d 161 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1030 , 87 S.Ct. 1478 , 18 L.Ed.2d 592 (1967).
discussed Cited "see" Midkiff v. Tom
D. Haw. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Southern Pacific Land Co. v. United States, 367 F.2d 161 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1030 , 87 S.Ct. 1478 , 18 L.Ed.2d 592 (1967); United States v. 18.2 Acres of Land, 442 F.Supp. 800 (E.D.Cal.1977). 4 .
discussed Cited "see" Hawaiian Investors v. Thorndal
8th Cir. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Southern Pacific Land Co. v. United States, 367 F.2d 161, 162, n. 1 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1030 , 87 S.Ct. 1478 , 18 L.Ed.2d 592 (1967); American Pipe & Steel Corp. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 292 F.2d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 1961); Stone v. Farnell, 239 F.2d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 1957).
discussed Cited "see" Petroleum Corporation of America v. Thorndal
8th Cir. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Southern Pacific Land Co. v. United States, 367 F.2d 161, 162, n. 1 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1030 , 87 S.Ct. 1478 , 18 L.Ed.2d 592 (1967); American Pipe & Steel Corp. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 292 F.2d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 1961); Stone v. Farnell, 239 F.2d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 1957).
examined Cited "see, e.g." New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. United States (6×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1968 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Oscar Gruss & Son v. United States, 261 F.Supp. 386 (S.D.N.Y. 1966), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 386 U.S. 776 , 87 S.Ct. 1478 , 18 L.Ed.2d 520 (1967); id., 261 F.Supp. at 395-96 (concurring opinion).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Frieda Suffin v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, the Pennsylvania Company and Norfolk Andwestern Railway Company (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1968 · signal: see also · confidence low
Central Securities Co. v. United States, 287 U.S. 12 , 53 S.Ct. 45 , 77 L.Ed. 138 (1932), are thus inapposite in these circumstances since the question of what the I.C.C. “must” do in a § 20a determination is irrelevant in a situation where it chose to exercise § 20a powers in connection with a merger under § 5, Schwabacher v. United States, supra. There is no doubt that the appellant and her class could have intervened and been heard in the I.C.C. proceedings, e. g., 49 U.S.C. § 13 (1), Southern Railway Company v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 29, 42 (N.D.Ala.1960); Abramson v. Western …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
OSCAR GRUSS & SON
v.
UNITED STATES Et Al.
1060.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 13, 1967.
386 U.S. 776
Myron S. Isaacs, for appellant., Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Robert W. Ginnane and Jerome Nelson for the United States et al., Hugh B. Cox and Henry P. Sailer for the Pennsylvania Railroad Co. et al., and Joseph Auerbach for Smith et al., appellees.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

Appellant is a bondholder of the New York, New Haven &.Hartford Railroad Company (the New Haven), which is now undergoing a reorganization under § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. § 205. On April 6, 1966, the Interstate Commerce Commission directed inclusion of the New Haven in the merger of the New York Central Railroad Company and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company as soon as terms and conditions could be settled, but approved the Penn-Central merger and authorized its consummation prior to such inclusion. Appellant then petitioned the Commission to reconsider this order. The Commission allowed appellant to intervene but denied the petition to reconsider, and appellant then challenged the Commission’s order of April 6 in the District Court,[*777] which dismissed the complaint on the ground, among others, that appellant lacked standing to attack the Penn-Central merger. Since that time this Court has reviewed other aspects of the Commission’s order approving the merger ¿nd has directed a remand to the Commission for further proceedings. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, ante, p. 372. Since the order which appellant’s suit attacked is now subject to further consideration by the Commission and since proceedings to achieve inclusion of the New.Haven are also under way before the Commission, it appears inappropriate to review the decision of the District Court at this time. Rather, we vacate the order of the. District Court and remand the case , to that court. Should appellant still be dissatisfied with the ultimate order of the Commission in the merger proceedings, it may attempt a fresh challenge in the District Court..

It is so ordered.