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

Grand Trunk Railway Company v. Michigan Railroad Commission

• 1913 • 231 U.S. 457 • White Court
The U.S. Supreme Court case Grand Trunk Railway Company v. Michigan Railroad Commission in 1913 revolved around the issue of whether a state could regulate interstate commerce rates for railroads operating within its borders. The Grand Trunk Railway Company, an international railway company with operations in Canada and the United States, challenged a decision by the Michigan Railroad Commission that set specific freight rates for goods transported within Michigan's borders. The railway company...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: 1913
Docket: 382
231 U.S. 457
34 S. Ct. 152
58 L. Ed. 310
1913 U.S. LEXIS 2541
Argued: Oct 23, 1913

Grand Trunk Railway Company v. Michigan Railroad Commission

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court case Grand Trunk Railway Company v. Michigan Railroad Commission in 1913 revolved around the issue of whether a state could regulate interstate commerce rates for railroads operating within its borders. The Grand Trunk Railway Company, an international railway company with operations in Canada and the United States, challenged a decision by the Michigan Railroad Commission that set specific freight rates for goods transported within Michigan's borders. The railway company argued this was unconstitutional as it interfered with Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. However, after careful consideration, the Supreme Court ruled against Grand Trunk Railway Company stating that states have authority to control intrastate commerce unless their actions directly conflict or burden federal regulation of interstate commerce which wasn't proven here. Therefore, they upheld Michigan’s right to establish reasonable railroad rates for transportations occurring entirely within its boundaries even if those transportation services were provided by companies also engaged in interstate business.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Grand Trunk Railway Company v. Michigan Railroad Commission, it was argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this matter as it pertains to a state's regulation of its own internal commerce. The dissenting justices believed that Michigan had every right to regulate rates on railroads operating within its borders and that federal intervention in such matters undermines states' rights. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes reasonable and just rates, arguing instead that these determinations should be left up to individual states rather than being dictated by federal courts or commissions. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on local businesses if railroad companies were allowed to set their own rates without any state oversight or control.

Opinion written by Justice JMcKenna
Decided: Dec 08, 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