Skip to content


illinois Vs. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number384 U.S. 213
Appellantillinois
RespondentChicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co.
Excerpt:
.....denied. burton c. bernard for appellant. hugh j. dobbs, john f. schlafly, louis f. gillespie, gordon burroughs, eldon martin, jordan jay hillman and robert l. broderick for appellees. briefs of amici curiae, in support of appellant, were filed by simon l. friedman and william m. giffin for the illinois association of school boards et al., and by william m. giffin for sangamon county, illinois. per curiam. the motion of the illinois association of school boards et al., for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, is granted. the motion of sangamon county, illinois, for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, is granted. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. treating the papers whereon the appeal was.....
Judgment:
ILLINOIS v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD CO. - 384 U.S. 213 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court ILLINOIS v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD CO., 384 U.S. 213 (1966) 384 U.S. 213

ILLINOIS EX REL. MUSSO, MADISON COUNTY TREASURER v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON &
QUINCY RAILROAD CO. ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. No. 1046.
Decided May 16, 1966.

33 Ill. 2d 88, 210 N. E. 2d 196, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Burton C. Bernard for appellant.

Hugh J. Dobbs, John F. Schlafly, Louis F. Gillespie, Gordon Burroughs, Eldon Martin, Jordan Jay Hillman and Robert L. Broderick for appellees.

Briefs of amici curiae, in support of appellant, were filed by Simon L. Friedman and William M. Giffin for the Illinois Association of School Boards et al., and by William M. Giffin for Sangamon County, Illinois.

PER CURIAM.

The motion of the Illinois Association of School Boards et al., for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, is granted.

The motion of Sangamon County, Illinois, for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, is granted.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

Page 384 U.S. 213, 214




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