Supreme Court of the United States, 1951

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 15, 1951 · Consideration, Took

342 U.S. 845; 72 S. Ct. 80; 96 L. Ed. 638; 1951 U.S. LEXIS 1465 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Harry E. Boe, Frank W. Sullivan, Warren H. ■ Wagner and Eldon Martin for appellants.., Solicitor General Perlman and Daniel W. Knowlton for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission, appellees.

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

True Oil Company v. Gibson (Wyo. 1964)
Whipp v. Bayou Plaquemine Brule Drainage Bd. (La. Ct. App. 1985)
Exxon Corporation v. Crosby-Mississippi Resources, Ltd. (5th Cir. 1998)
Exxon Corp. v. Crosby-Mississippi Resources, Ltd. (5th Cir. 1998)
Terrebonne v. SOUTH LOUISIANA TIDAL WATER CONTROL LEVEE DIST. (La. Ct. App. 1982)
Detlic Farm & Timber Co. v. Board of Com'rs (La. Ct. App. 1979)
Hathorn v. Board of Commissioners (La. Ct. App. 1969)
Dock Perry Glenn v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, Warden (8th Cir. 1966)
United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (District Court, S.D. Iowa 1959)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. City of St. Petersburg, Florida (5th Cir. 1957)
Delaune v. Board of Commissioners (La. 1956)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. United States v. American Sheet & Tin Plate Co., 301 U. S. 402; United States v. United States Smelting Co., 339 U. S. 186.

Mr. Justice Minton took no part in the consideration or decision of. this case.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.