Supreme Court of the United States, 1967

Oscar Gruss & Son v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 13, 1967 · Per Curiam

386 U.S. 776; 87 S. Ct. 1478; 18 L. Ed. 2d 520; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2854 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Myron S. Isaacs, for appellant., Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Robert W. Ginnane and Jerome Nelson for the United States et al., Hugh B. Cox and Henry P. Sailer for the Pennsylvania Railroad Co. et al., and Joseph Auerbach for Smith et al., appellees.

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision. The 13 that cite it most often are listed here.

New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. United States (District Court, S.D. New York 1968)
Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Company v. United States (District Court, S.D. New York 1967)
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad v. United States (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1968)
In re New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (2d Cir. 1967)
United States v. 729.773 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in Honolulu (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 1982)
New Haven Inclusion Cases (Supreme Court of the United States 1970)
Frieda Suffin v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, the Pennsylvania Company and Norfolk Andwestern Railway Company (3d Cir. 1968)
United States v. 1,402 ACRES OF LAND (9th Cir. 2006)
United States v. 2.9 Acres of Land, More or Less, Etc. (District Court, D. Montana 1982)
United States v. 101.88 Acres Of Land, More Or Less, Situated In St. Mary Parish, Louisiana (5th Cir. 1980)
People v. Rico (District Court, D. Guam 1980)
United States v. 101.88 Acres of Land (5th Cir. 1980)
United States v. 58.16 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Clinton County, State of Illinois, and George Cooley, and Unknown Owners (7th Cir. 1973)

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

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.

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