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

Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. v. United States Et Al.

• 1959 • 361 U.S. 173 • Warren Court
In the case of Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. v. United States et al., 1959, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a railroad company could abandon its line without approval from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company sought to discontinue two segments of their railway lines due to financial losses but were denied by ICC as it was deemed against public interest. The railway company argued that this denial violated their Fifth Amendment rights,...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 Warren Court
Term: 1959
Docket: 12
361 U.S. 173
80 S. Ct. 229
4 L. Ed. 2d 223
1959 U.S. LEXIS 2
Argued: Nov 16, 1959

Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. v. United States Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. v. United States et al., 1959, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a railroad company could abandon its line without approval from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company sought to discontinue two segments of their railway lines due to financial losses but were denied by ICC as it was deemed against public interest. The railway company argued that this denial violated their Fifth Amendment rights, asserting that forcing them to continue operations resulted in 'taking' private property for public use without just compensation. The Supreme Court upheld ICC's decision, ruling that railroads are not entitled to abandon parts of their lines without regulatory approval even if they're operating at a loss. It held that while railroads have some characteristics of private enterprises, they also serve a public function and therefore subject themselves voluntarily to regulation for the common good when they choose such business model - including potential restrictions on abandonment decisions.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. v. United States et al., Justice Harlan argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had overstepped its authority by ordering a merger between two railway companies without considering whether it was in the public interest or not, as required by federal law. He contended that while Congress gave ICC power to regulate mergers and acquisitions among railroads, this power should be exercised within certain limits set forth in Section 5(2) of the Interstate Commerce Act which requires consideration of public interest before approving any transaction involving control change of carriers under its jurisdiction. The majority's interpretation would give ICC an unchecked discretion contrary to Congressional intent when it enacted Section 5(2). Therefore, he believed that such broad reading is inappropriate and could lead to potential abuses of regulatory powers.

Opinion written by Justice CEWhittaker
Decided: Dec 14, 1959
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