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

De Bary & Company v. State Of Louisiana

• 1912 • 227 U.S. 108 • White Court
In the case of De Bary & Company v. State of Louisiana in 1912, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving interstate commerce and state taxation rights. The plaintiff, De Bary & Co., was an out-of-state corporation that sold champagne in Louisiana through its own salesmen without paying any license tax to the state. The company argued that this practice was protected under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which prohibits states from taxing interstate commerce. However,...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 White Court
Term: 1912
Docket: 696
227 U.S. 108
33 S. Ct. 239
57 L. Ed. 441
1913 U.S. LEXIS 2281

De Bary & Company v. State Of Louisiana

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of De Bary & Company v. State of Louisiana in 1912, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving interstate commerce and state taxation rights. The plaintiff, De Bary & Co., was an out-of-state corporation that sold champagne in Louisiana through its own salesmen without paying any license tax to the state. The company argued that this practice was protected under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which prohibits states from taxing interstate commerce. However, Louisiana countered by stating it had imposed a non-discriminatory license tax on all businesses selling goods within its borders - whether they were based inside or outside of Louisiana - and thus it wasn't specifically targeting interstate commerce. The court sided with Louisiana, ruling that while states cannot impose taxes directly on interstate commerce itself, they can levy taxes on activities related to but not part-and-parcel of such trade (like maintaining local offices or employing salespeople). Therefore, even though De Bary & Co.'s business involved transactions across state lines (interstate), their use of local resources for commercial purposes could be taxed by individual states without violating federal law.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of De Bary & Company v. State of Louisiana argued that the state's regulation, which required all tobacco to be inspected and classified before it could be sold or removed from a warehouse, was not an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce. The dissent contended that this law did not discriminate against out-of-state businesses as it applied equally to all tobacco within the state, regardless of its origin. Furthermore, they maintained that such inspection laws were common and necessary for protecting consumers from fraud and ensuring product quality standards are met. They also pointed out that if every regulatory measure affecting goods destined for interstate commerce were deemed unconstitutional then many beneficial health and safety regulations would have to be struck down as well.

Opinion written by Justice EDEWhite
Decided: Jan 27, 1913
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