Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 390 U.S. 923, 88 S. Ct. 856

Decision Date: 1/29/1968

Docket Number: No. 859; No. 861; No. 862; No. 863; No. 933

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad, 390 U.S. 923, 88 S. Ct. 856 (1968)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1968

Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Co. et al.; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen et al. v. Akron & Barberton Belt Railroad Co. et al.; Order of Railway Conductors & Brakemen v. Akron & Barberton Belt Railroad Co. et al.; Akron & Barberton Belt Railroad Co. et al. v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen et al.; and Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Co. et al. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen.

Judges

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.

Attorneys

Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., John Silard, Harriett R. Taylor, Isaac N. Groner, Harold C. Heiss, Donald W. Bennett, Alex Elson, Willard J. Lassers and Aaron S. Wolff for petitioner, and Francis M. Shea, Richard T. Conway and James R. Wolfe for respondents in No. 859.
Milton Kramer, Lester P. Schoene and Martin W. Fingerhut for petitioners, and Messrs. Shea, Conway and Wolfe for respondents in No. 861.
James D. Hill and Harry E. Wilmarth for petitioner, and Messrs. Shea, Conway and Wolfe for respondents in No. 862.
Messrs. Shea, Conway and Wolfe for petitioners, and Messrs. Kramer, Schoene and Fingerhut for Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen et al., and Messrs. Hill and Wil-marth for Order of Railway Conductors & Brakemen, respondents, in No. 863.
Messrs. Shea, Conway and Wolfe for petitioners, and Messrs. Rauh, Silard, Groner, Heiss, Bennett, Elson, Lassers and Wolff, David Epstein, and Mrs. Taylor for respondent in No. 933.

majority

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.

Reported below: 128 U. S. App. D. C. 59, 385 F. 2d 581.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.