green
Positive treatment
1.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1957 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1957
1991
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
National Small Shipments Traffic Conference, Inc. v. United States
See Amarillo-Borger Express, Inc. v. United States, 138 F.Supp. 411 (N.D.Texas 1956), judgment vacated as moot, 352 U.S. 1028 , 77 S.Ct. 594 , 1 L.Ed.2d 598 (1957) (limited reviewability of the vacating order); accord, Long Island R.R. v. United States, 140 F.Supp. 823 (E.D.N.Y.1956); Dixie Carriers, Inc. v. United States, 143 F.Supp. 844 (S.D.Texas 1956), judgment vacated as moot, 355 U.S. 179 , 78 S.Ct. 258 , 2 L.Ed.2d 186 (1957); Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. United States, 173 F.Supp. 871 (E.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
J. T. Fulford v. Jesse v. B. Forman, Elmer G. Gardner and Murphey W. Luna
As acreage allotments are indispensable to cotton farming, it may be that these actions by successive levels of administrators qualify as Sanctions or Licenses under 5 U.S. O.A. § 1001 (e, f), and, unless the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 indicates a purpose to preclude all judicial review or commit all to the unreviewable discretion of the Administrator, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009 , which must be clearly demonstrated, Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U.S. 48 , 75 S.Ct. 591 , 99 L.Ed. 868 ; Brownell v. Tom We Shung, 352 U.S. 180 , 77 S.Ct. 252 , 1 L.Ed.2d 225 ; see, for summary of legislative histo…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arkansas & Louisiana Missouri Railway Co.
v.
Amarillo-Borger Express, Inc. and United States v. Amarillo-Borger Express, Inc.
v.
Amarillo-Borger Express, Inc. and United States v. Amarillo-Borger Express, Inc.
No. 125; No. 224.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 11, 1957.
William B. McDowell argued the cause for appellants in No. 125. With him on the brief was J. T. Suggs. Robert W. Oinnane argued the cause for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission, appellants in No. 224. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen and H. Neil Garson. Ralph W. Currie argued the cause and filed a brief for appellees.
Douglas, Erankeurter.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Per Curiam:
The judgment is vacated and the cases are remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the cause as moot.
Mr. Justice Erankeurter and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent.Reported below: 138 F. Supp. 411.