Case Name: New York Central Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al.; Erie Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al.; and New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al.
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1958-06-16
Citations: 357 U.S. 917
Docket Number: No. 838; No. 918; No. 948
Parties: New York Central Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al.; Erie Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al.; and New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 357
Pages: 917–918

Head Matter:
No. 838.
No. 918.
No. 948.
New York Central Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al.; Erie Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al.; and New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al.
Thomas E. Dewey and Gerald E. Dwyer for appellant in No. 838. Charles W. Hutchinson, Raymond J. Lamb and Frederick G. Hoffmann for appellant in No. 918. Joseph J. Biunno for appellant in No. 948. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen, Robert W. Ginnane and Charlie H. Johns, Jr. for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission, appellees in Nos. 838 and 918. David D. Furman, Acting Attorney General of New Jersey, and William A. Roberts, for the Board of Public Utility Commissioners et al., and Milton T. Lasher, Mr. Roberts and Edgar Turlington for Bergen County, New Jersey, et al.,. appellees in No. 838. Mr. Furman and Joseph P. Lordi and Felix G. Forlenza, Deputy Attorneys General of New Jersey, for the Board of Public Utility Commissioners of New Jersey et al., appellees in No. 918.

Opinion:
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In these cases probable jurisdiction is noted. The motion to strike memorandum for appellees, United States and Interstate Commerce Commission, in support of statements as to jurisdiction in No. 838 is denied.
Reported below: No. 838, 158 F. Supp. 98; Nos. 918 and 948, 158 F. Supp. 104.