Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. United States Et Al.

• 1927 • 275 U.S. 404 • Taft Court
The Supreme Court case Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. United States et al., 1927 revolved around the interpretation of the Transportation Act of 1920 and its impact on railway companies' rates for interstate commerce. The plaintiff, a railway company known as "The Big Four," argued that it was entitled to increase its freight rates due to increased operating costs and in order to ensure adequate revenue under Section 15a of the act. However, the Interstate...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Taft Court
Term: 1927
Docket: 95
275 U.S. 404
48 S. Ct. 189
72 L. Ed. 338
1928 U.S. LEXIS 276
Argued: Nov 30, 1927

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. United States Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The Supreme Court case Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. United States et al., 1927 revolved around the interpretation of the Transportation Act of 1920 and its impact on railway companies' rates for interstate commerce. The plaintiff, a railway company known as "The Big Four," argued that it was entitled to increase its freight rates due to increased operating costs and in order to ensure adequate revenue under Section 15a of the act. However, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) denied their request based on an interpretation that only allowed rate increases if they were necessary for maintaining an overall transportation system's financial stability rather than individual companies'. The Supreme Court upheld ICC's decision stating that while Section 15a aimed at ensuring fair returns for carriers involved in interstate commerce, it did not guarantee every carrier would achieve this goal individually but rather as part of a larger national transportation network.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. United States et al., Justice Stone argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had overstepped its authority by ordering railroads to establish through routes and joint rates without first determining whether existing arrangements were unjust or unreasonable. He believed that this was a violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment as it allowed ICC to interfere with private contractual relationships without sufficient justification. Furthermore, he contended that such interference could lead to arbitrary and discriminatory practices which would undermine free competition in interstate commerce - something Congress sought to protect when establishing ICC's regulatory powers under the Interstate Commerce Act.

Opinion written by Justice LDBrandeis
Decided: Jan 03, 1928
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms