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

Maine v. Grand Trunk Railway Company

• 1891 • 142 U.S. 217 • Fuller Court
In the case of Maine v. Grand Trunk Railway Company, 1891, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The state of Maine had attempted to impose a tax on the Canadian-based Grand Trunk Railway Company for its operations within Maine's borders. However, this was challenged by the railway company as an infringement upon federal authority over interstate and international commerce under Article I Section 8 Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause) of the Constitution. The court held that...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 Fuller Court
Term: 1891
Docket: 29
142 U.S. 217
12 S. Ct. 121
35 L. Ed. 994
1891 U.S. LEXIS 2580

Maine v. Grand Trunk Railway Company

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Maine v. Grand Trunk Railway Company, 1891, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company. The state of Maine had attempted to impose a tax on the Canadian-based Grand Trunk Railway Company for its operations within Maine's borders. However, this was challenged by the railway company as an infringement upon federal authority over interstate and international commerce under Article I Section 8 Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause) of the Constitution. The court held that states could not interfere with or control foreign corporations engaged in interstate or international commerce through taxation measures without consent from Congress. It further clarified that while states have power to regulate domestic corporations within their jurisdiction, they cannot exercise such powers over foreign entities involved in interstate or international trade unless explicitly authorized by Congress. This decision reinforced federal supremacy over matters related to interstate and international commerce and limited state interference with these activities.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Maine v. Grand Trunk Railway Company argued that the state of Maine should not have jurisdiction over a foreign corporation like Grand Trunk Railway, which was incorporated under Canadian law. The dissenters believed that allowing states to regulate and control foreign corporations would lead to an abuse of power and could potentially harm international commerce. They also noted that while states do have some authority over domestic corporations within their borders, this does not extend to foreign entities operating within their territory. Furthermore, they contended that if every state were allowed to impose its own regulations on these companies it would create a chaotic system with conflicting rules and standards for businesses trying to operate across multiple jurisdictions.

Opinion written by Justice SJField
Decided: Dec 14, 1891
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