Alamo Express, Inc. v. United States, 382 U.S. 19 (1965). · Go Syfert
Search
Alamo Express, Inc. v. United States, 382 U.S. 19 (1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the need 20 to overcome obstructions to ongoing proceedings warrants a procedure whereby a trial 21 judge may, in a summary fashion, remedy a breakdown in the orderly operation of the 22 judicial system”
29 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Carranza v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (casd, 2023-02-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Carranza v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
S.D. Cal. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the need 20 to overcome obstructions to ongoing proceedings warrants a procedure whereby a trial 21 judge may, in a summary fashion, remedy a breakdown in the orderly operation of the 22 judicial system
discussed Cited "see" Barnes Freight Line, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission (2×)
5th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alamo Express, Inc. v. United States, W.D.Tex.1965, 239 F.Supp. 694, 697-98 (three judge court), aff’d 1965, 382 U.S. 19 , 86 S.Ct. 83 , 15 L.Ed.2d 14 .
discussed Cited "see" Barnes Freight Line, Inc. v. The Interstate Commerce Commission and the United States of America, Ross Neely Express, Inc., Intervenor-Respondent. Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Ross Neely Express, Inc., Intervenor-Respondent. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Ross Neely Express, Inc., Intervenor-Respondent (2×)
5th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alamo Express, Inc. v. United States, W.D.Tex.1965, 239 F.Supp. 694, 697-98 (three judge court), aff'd 1965, 382 U.S. 19 , 86 S.Ct. 83 , 15 L.Ed.2d 14 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ALAMO EXPRESS, INC., ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.
357.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 11, 1965.
382 U.S. 19
Per Curiam.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.

Reagan Sayers and Ewell H. Muse, Jr., for appellants.

Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Lionel Kestenbaum, Robert W. Ginnane and Arthur J. Cerra for the United States et al. William E. Cureton for appellees Central Freight Lines, Inc., et al.

PER CURIAM.

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