Supreme Court of the United States, 1967

Lester C. Newton Trucking Co. v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 16, 1967 · Harlan, White, Marshall

389 U.S. 30; 19 L. Ed. 2d 29; 88 S. Ct. 108; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 508 (United States Reports)

Counsel

H. Charles Ephraim for appellant., Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert W. Ginnane and John E. Faulk for the United States et al.

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

Hughes v. United States (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1967)
Hilt Truck Line, Inc. v. United States (8th Cir. 1976)
Trans-American Van Service, Inc. v. United States (District Court, N.D. Texas 1976)
Hilt Truck Line, Inc. v. United States (8th Cir. 1976)
Lemmon Transport Company v. United States (District Court, W.D. Virginia 1975)
Artus Trucking Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission (District Court, E.D. New York 1974)
Nationwide Carriers, Inc. v. United States (D. Minn. 1974)
Tri-State Motor Transit Co. v. United States (District Court, W.D. Missouri 1973)
Superior Trucking Co. v. United States (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1969)
Lynch v. Public Service Commission (District Court, D. Nevada 1974)
State v. Passante (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1987)
Goldstein v. Miller (District Court, D. Maryland 1980)
Reid v. Exports, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
Division of Beverage, Department of Business Regulation v. Bonanni Ship Supply, Inc. (Fla. 1978)
District of Columbia v. Samuel Meisel & Co. (D.C. 1974)
House of York, Ltd. v. Ring (District Court, S.D. New York 1970)
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. County of Contra Costa (Cal. Ct. App. 1969)

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.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White

would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.

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

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