Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. United States

379 U.S. 199, 85 S. Ct. 307, 13 L. Ed. 2d 338, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 64
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedDecember 14, 1964
Docket130
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 379 U.S. 199 (Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n 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
Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. United States, 379 U.S. 199, 85 S. Ct. 307, 13 L. Ed. 2d 338, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 64 (1964).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal is from a judgment of a three-judge District Court, 226 F. Supp. 521, dismissing appellants’ complaint to set aside orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 317 I. C. C. 557, 729, relating to the Southern Railway Company’s acquisition of control through stock, ownership of the Central of Georgia Railway Company. Appellants, representing railway employees, object that under the Commission’s orders, the employees are not protected as provided by §§ 4, 5, *200 and 0 of the Washington Job Protection- Agreement. We agree with the suggestion of the Solicitor General that this case should be remanded to the Interstate Commerce Commission for clarification of its orders insofar as they relate to the agreement. For this reason, the motion of the Interstate Commerce Commission to affirm the judgment of the District Court is denied. The motion of intervenor-appellees Southern Railway Company and Central of Georgia Railway Company to defer consideration of the jurisdictional statement is denied. Appellants’ motion to limit the appeal to questions related to §§ 4, 5, and 9 of' the Washington Job Piocection Agreement is granted. The judgment oí the District Court is vacated insofar as it relates to §§ 4, 5, and 9 of the Washington Agreement, and this case is remanded to that court with instructions to remand it to the Interstate Commerce Commission with instructions to amend its reports and orders as necessary to deal with appellants’ request that § § 4, 5, and 9 be included as protective conditions, specifically indicating why each of these provisions is either omitted or included. See United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & Pac. R. Co., 294 U. S. 499, 511.

Vacated and remanded.

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

Related

Jackson v. Lundy Packing Co.
324 S.E.2d 290 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1985)
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. United States
571 F.2d 1190 (D.C. Circuit, 1977)
Hollman v. City of Raleigh, Public Utilities Department
159 S.E.2d 874 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
Soo Line Railroad Company v. United States
280 F. Supp. 907 (D. Minnesota, 1968)
Florida East Coast Railway Company v. United States
259 F. Supp. 993 (M.D. Florida, 1966)
Martin v. Commonwealth
397 S.W.2d 65 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1965)
Switchmen's Union v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.
341 F.2d 213 (Fifth Circuit, 1965)
Brotherhood of Railway v. Southern Railway Co.
341 F.2d 217 (Fifth Circuit, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
379 U.S. 199, 85 S. Ct. 307, 13 L. Ed. 2d 338, 1964 U.S. LEXIS 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/railway-labor-executives-assn-v-united-states-scotus-1964.