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

Independent Coal & Coke Company Et Al. v. United States Et Al.

• 1926 • 274 U.S. 640 • Taft Court
The case of Independent Coal & Coke Company et al. v. United States et al., 1926, revolved around the issue of whether a railroad company could lawfully charge higher rates for shorter distances compared to longer ones under the Interstate Commerce Act. The plaintiffs, coal companies in Utah, alleged that they were being charged more per mile than their competitors in Wyoming by Union Pacific Railroad and Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad for shipping coal to Nevada despite having a shorter...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 Taft Court
Term: 1926
Docket: 300
274 U.S. 640
47 S. Ct. 714
71 L. Ed. 1270
1927 U.S. LEXIS 632
Argued: Apr 26, 1927

Independent Coal & Coke Company Et Al. v. United States Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The case of Independent Coal & Coke Company et al. v. United States et al., 1926, revolved around the issue of whether a railroad company could lawfully charge higher rates for shorter distances compared to longer ones under the Interstate Commerce Act. The plaintiffs, coal companies in Utah, alleged that they were being charged more per mile than their competitors in Wyoming by Union Pacific Railroad and Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad for shipping coal to Nevada despite having a shorter distance to travel. They claimed this was discriminatory and violated the Interstate Commerce Act's requirement for reasonable and just rates. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that while generally railroads should not charge more per mile over short distances than long ones; exceptions can be made if there are competitive conditions or other factors which justify such differences in charges as reasonable and fair. In this case, it was found that Wyoming had greater competition due to proximity with other states' mines leading to lower prices whereas Utah did not have similar competition hence higher prices were justified even though it was closer geographically.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Independent Coal & Coke Company v. United States, it was argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had overstepped its authority by setting rates for railroads without considering their individual circumstances and financial health. The justices contended that this approach could potentially lead to bankruptcy for some railroads if they were forced to operate at a loss due to ICC-imposed rates. They also expressed concern about the lack of judicial review or oversight in these decisions, arguing that such unchecked power on part of an administrative body is contrary to principles of fairness and justice. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's interpretation of 'just and reasonable' standard applied by ICC in rate-setting process as being too vague and subjective which can result into arbitrary decision-making.

Opinion written by Justice HFStone
Decided: May 31, 1927
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