Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Philipp Transit Lines, Inc.; Vincent D. Vogler, Jr.,trustee, Appellants, v. Rmi Company, a Partnership, United States Steel Corporation,national Distillers Chemical Corporation, Appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. - 723 F.2d 53
Submitted Nov. 16, 1983.Decided Dec. 21, 1983
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri; William S. Bahn, Magistrate.
Stern, Pressman & Soule, Norman W. Pressman, St. Louis, Mo., for appellants.
Harold A. Thomas, Jr., Clark H. Cole, Armstrong, Teasdale, Kramer & Vaughan, St. Louis, Mo., for appellees; John F. Hornbostel, Jr., New York City, of counsel.
Before ROSS, ARNOLD and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The case is before this court on appeal from the judgment of the district court. The parties have stipulated to the facts and they are summarized below.
The appellant is the Trustee in bankruptcy of Philipp Transit Lines, Inc. This action was brought against RMI Company to recover rate charges under Item 136500 of the National Motor Freight Classification. Philipp claims that the highest rate available should have applied to 459 shipments of titanium, because RMI failed to substantially comply with the applicable tariff requirements.
As we stated to counsel at the conclusion of oral arguments, we have carefully studied the record in this case and find appellant's claim to be without merit. In accordance with the rules of this court, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8TH CIR. R. 14.