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

Georgia v. Evans Et Al.

• 1941 • 316 U.S. 159 • Stone Court
In the 1941 case of Georgia v. Evans et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Georgia, reversing a lower court's decision that had dismissed an indictment against several individuals for violating state antitrust laws. The defendants were charged with conspiring to fix prices and control competition in the ice industry within Augusta, Georgia. They argued that their actions did not violate state law because they involved interstate commerce which was under federal jurisdiction according...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 Stone Court
Term: 1941
Docket: 872
316 U.S. 159
62 S. Ct. 972
86 L. Ed. 1346
1942 U.S. LEXIS 1226
Argued: Apr 14, 1942

Georgia v. Evans Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1941 case of Georgia v. Evans et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Georgia, reversing a lower court's decision that had dismissed an indictment against several individuals for violating state antitrust laws. The defendants were charged with conspiring to fix prices and control competition in the ice industry within Augusta, Georgia. They argued that their actions did not violate state law because they involved interstate commerce which was under federal jurisdiction according to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that while some aspects of their business may involve interstate commerce, this specific conspiracy took place entirely within one city and therefore fell under state jurisdiction. Furthermore, it held that even if there was a connection to interstate commerce, states still have authority over local trade practices unless Congress has specifically legislated otherwise or if such regulation would conflict with national policy on foreign or interstate trade.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Georgia v. Evans, Justice Roberts argued that the majority's decision to strike down a state law prohibiting out-of-state companies from buying and transporting in-state scrap iron without first offering it to local foundries was incorrect. He contended that this law did not violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as it did not discriminate against interstate commerce but rather sought to conserve resources within its borders for use by its own industries during a time of national emergency (World War II). He further stated that states should have authority over their natural resources and be able to regulate them as they see fit unless Congress has explicitly legislated otherwise. In his view, striking down such laws could lead to wasteful exploitation of these resources with no regard for future needs or consequences.

Opinion written by Justice FFrankfurter
Decided: Apr 27, 1942
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