Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. United States 386 U.S. 544

← Cases

Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. United States

386 U.S. 544 Court SCOTUS Decision date 1967-04-10 Docket No. 638 English

Judges Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted in Nos. 638, 639,- and 641.; Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

Delivered by Per Curiam.

Contents

Majority

p. 544
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO. v. UNITED STATES et al.
No. 638.
Decided April 10, 1967.[1]
A. 'Alvis Layne for appellant, in No. 638; Wm. Reece Smith, Jr., for appellant in No. 639; Edward J. Hickey, Jr., James L. Highsaw, Jr., William G. Mahoney and
p. 545
William J. Hickey for appellants in No. 640; W. Graham Claytor, Jr., and John K. Mallory, Jr., for appellant in No. 641.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Richard A. Posner, Edwin M. Zimmerman and Lionel Kestenbaum for the United States in Nos. 638, 639 and 641; Robert W. Ginnane, Fritz R. Kahn and Betty Jo Christian for the Interstate Commerce Commission in Nos. 638, 639 and 641; Paul A. Porter and Dennis G. Lyons for Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co. et al., appellees.
James M. Weaver filed a brief for the Tampa Port Authority, as amicus curiae, urging reversal. Lewis W. Petteway and B. Kenneth Gatlin filed a brief for the Florida Public Service Commission, as amicus curiae, in opposition to the motions to affirm.

The motions to affirm in Nos. 638, 639, and 641 are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

The motion to dismiss in No. 640 is granted and the appeal is dismissed , as moot.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted in Nos. 638, 639,- and 641.

Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.