Oscar Gruss & Son v. United States

386 U.S. 776, 87 S. Ct. 1478, 18 L. Ed. 2d 520, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2854
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 13, 1967
Docket1060
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 386 U.S. 776 (Oscar Gruss & Son v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Oscar Gruss & Son v. United States, 386 U.S. 776, 87 S. Ct. 1478, 18 L. Ed. 2d 520, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2854 (1967).

Opinion

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.

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

Related

United States v. 1,402 ACRES OF LAND
203 F. App'x 70 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. 101.88 Acres of Land
616 F.2d 762 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
People v. Rico
2 Guam 168 (D. Guam, 1980)
New Haven Inclusion Cases
399 U.S. 392 (Supreme Court, 1970)
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad v. United States
294 F. Supp. 86 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1968)
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. United States
289 F. Supp. 418 (S.D. New York, 1968)
Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Company v. United States
279 F. Supp. 316 (S.D. New York, 1967)
In re New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
378 F.2d 635 (Second Circuit, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
386 U.S. 776, 87 S. Ct. 1478, 18 L. Ed. 2d 520, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oscar-gruss-son-v-united-states-scotus-1967.