Skip to content


Atlantic Coast Line R. Vs. Brotherhood of R.W. Trainmen - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number385 U.S. 20
AppellantAtlantic Coast Line R.
RespondentBrotherhood of R.W. Trainmen
Excerpt:
atlantic coast line r. v. brotherhood of r.w. trainmen - 385 u.s. 20 (1966) u.s. supreme court atlantic coast line r. v. brotherhood of r.w. trainmen, 385 u.s. 20 (1966) 385 u.s. 20 atlantic coast line railroad co. et. al. v. brotherhood of railway trainmen et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit. no. 220. argued october 10, 1966. decided october 24, 1966. 362 f.2d 649 , affirmed. paul a. porter and dennis g. lyons argued the cause for petitioners. with them on the briefs were abe krash and daniel a. rezneck. neal rutledge and allan milledge argued the cause for respondents. with them on the brief was lester p. schoene. per curiam. the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided.....
Judgment:
ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. v. BROTHERHOOD OF R.W. TRAINMEN - 385 U.S. 20 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. v. BROTHERHOOD OF R.W. TRAINMEN, 385 U.S. 20 (1966) 385 U.S. 20

ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO. ET. AL. v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY
TRAINMEN ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 220.
Argued October 10, 1966.
Decided October 24, 1966.

362 F.2d 649 , affirmed.

Paul A. Porter and Dennis G. Lyons argued the cause for petitioners. With them on the briefs were Abe Krash and Daniel A. Rezneck.

Neal Rutledge and Allan Milledge argued the cause for respondents. With them on the brief was Lester P. Schoene.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

MR. JUSTICE FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Page 385 U.S. 20, 21




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //