Hudson & Manhattan R. v. Cahill

Supreme Court

Hudson & Manhattan R. v. Cahill

307 U.S. 640, 59 S. Ct. 1038

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided May 29, 1939·No. No. 925·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [641]*641denied.'

Mr. William D. Whitney for petitioner. Solicitor General Jackson, Assistant Attorney General Arnold, and Messrs. Robert L. Stern, Charles A. Horsky, .and Daniel W. Knowlton for Cahill et. al., respondents. Messrs. Ezra Brainerd, Jr. and Alex. M. Bull for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers et al., intervening-respondents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [641]*641denied.'

Mr. William D. Whitney for petitioner. Solicitor General Jackson, Assistant Attorney General Arnold, and Messrs. Robert L. Stern, Charles A. Horsky, .and Daniel W. Knowlton for Cahill et. al., respondents. Messrs. Ezra Brainerd, Jr. and Alex. M. Bull for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers et al., intervening-respondents.

Hudson & Manhattan R. v. Cahill, 307 U.S. 640, 59 S. Ct. 1038 (1939).

Pincite

307 U.S. 640 (Hudson & Manhattan R. v. Cahill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related