Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, Applicants v. The Wichita Board of Trade No. A-1320, (1972)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States Number:  Visitors: 59
Filed: Jul. 07, 1972
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 409 U.S. 801 93 S. Ct. 24 34 L. Ed. 2d 14 The ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY et al., applicants, v. The WICHITA BOARD OF TRADE et al. No. A-1320. Supreme Court of the United States July 7, 1972 1 On consideration of the appellants' application for stay, the appellees' reply to the application, and the affidavits and memoranda filed in support of the application and reply, it is ordered: 2 (1) That, subject to the condition set forth in paragraph 2 herein, the judgment of the Unite
More

409 U.S. 801

93 S. Ct. 24

34 L. Ed. 2d 14

The ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY et al., applicants,
v.
The WICHITA BOARD OF TRADE et al.
No. A-1320.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 7, 1972

1

On consideration of the appellants' application for stay, the appellees' reply to the application, and the affidavits and memoranda filed in support of the application and reply, it is ordered:

2

(1) That, subject to the condition set forth in paragraph 2 herein, the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas entered in this matter on June 8, 1972, be and hereby is stayed pending a final determination of the appeal by this Court.

3

(2) That, as a condition of the foregoing stay, each railroad collecting in-transit grain inspection charges under the challenged tariffs shall immediately take steps, including publication of appropriate provisions in applicable tariffs, to do the following:

4

(a) keep accurate accounts in detail of all amounts hereafter received during the existence of the stay by reason of in-transit grain inspection charges, specifying by whom and in whose behalf such amounts are paid; and

5

(b) in the event the order suspending the charges is affirmed by this Court, refund (with interest) of such amounts to persons in whose behalf such amounts were paid, without the necessity for such persons to make applications for refunds. In the event this Court's action should be other than in affirmance of the results reached by the district court, this Court may make such further order concerning the disposition of the aforesaid amounts as the Court may deem appropriate.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer