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

Detroit And Mackinac Railway Company v. Michigan Railroad Commission And Fletcher Paper Company

• 1915 • 240 U.S. 564 • White Court
In the case of Detroit and Mackinac Railway Company v. Michigan Railroad Commission and Fletcher Paper Company, 1915, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state railroad commission had the authority to set freight rates for intrastate commerce that were lower than those established by federal law for interstate commerce. The Detroit and Mackinac Railway Company argued that this constituted an undue burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S...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: 1915
Docket: 68
240 U.S. 564
36 S. Ct. 424
60 L. Ed. 802
1916 U.S. LEXIS 1483
Argued: Nov 10, 1915

Detroit And Mackinac Railway Company v. Michigan Railroad Commission And Fletcher Paper Company

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Detroit and Mackinac Railway Company v. Michigan Railroad Commission and Fletcher Paper Company, 1915, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state railroad commission had the authority to set freight rates for intrastate commerce that were lower than those established by federal law for interstate commerce. The Detroit and Mackinac Railway Company argued that this constituted an undue burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution. However, after reviewing both sides' arguments, Justice Hughes ruled against them stating that there was no evidence showing such a burden existed due to these different rate structures. He also emphasized that states have considerable power over their own internal trade as long as it does not interfere with or discriminate against interstate commerce.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Detroit and Mackinac Railway Company v. Michigan Railroad Commission and Fletcher Paper Company argued that the court majority had overstepped its jurisdiction by interfering with a state's right to regulate its own industries. The dissenters believed that the Michigan Railroad Commission was within its rights to order a reduction in freight rates, as it was acting under authority granted by the state legislature. They contended that this issue should be resolved at a local level rather than being decided upon by federal courts, which they felt were not equipped to make judgments on matters of local industry regulation. Furthermore, they expressed concern about setting a precedent for future cases where federal courts could potentially interfere with states' rights without proper justification or cause.

Opinion written by Justice WVanDevanter
Decided: Apr 03, 1916
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