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

Hegeman Farms Corp. v. Baldwin Et Al.

• 1934 • 293 U.S. 163 • Hughes Court
In Hegeman Farms Corp. v. Baldwin et al., the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a New York state law that regulated milk prices violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress exclusive power over interstate commerce. The plaintiff, Hegeman Farms Corporation, argued that because it sold its milk in both New York and other states, any regulation of its prices by New York would interfere with interstate commerce and thus be unconstitutional. However, the court...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 Hughes Court
Term: 1934
Docket: 27
293 U.S. 163
55 S. Ct. 7
79 L. Ed. 259
1934 U.S. LEXIS 14
Argued: Oct 08, 1934

Hegeman Farms Corp. v. Baldwin Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Hegeman Farms Corp. v. Baldwin et al., the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a New York state law that regulated milk prices violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress exclusive power over interstate commerce. The plaintiff, Hegeman Farms Corporation, argued that because it sold its milk in both New York and other states, any regulation of its prices by New York would interfere with interstate commerce and thus be unconstitutional. However, the court ruled against Hegeman Farms Corporation stating that while some aspects of their business were indeed part of interstate commerce (such as transportation), others like production and sale within a single state were not necessarily so; hence they could be subject to local regulations without violating federal jurisdiction over trade between states.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Hegeman Farms Corp. v. Baldwin et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New York law regulating milk prices contradicted previous rulings of the court and violated principles of economic liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenters believed that while states have broad powers to regulate businesses in order to protect public welfare, these powers should not extend so far as to control prices or interfere with free competition, which they saw as fundamental rights under our constitutional system. They also pointed out inconsistencies between this case and earlier decisions where similar laws were struck down on grounds of unconstitutionality, suggesting an arbitrary application of judicial review standards by the majority justices.

Opinion written by Justice BNCardozo
Decided: Nov 05, 1934
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