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

Pabst Brewing Company v. Crenshaw

• 1904 • 198 U.S. 17 • Fuller Court
In the 1904 case of Pabst Brewing Company v. Crenshaw, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pabst Brewing Company, a Wisconsin-based beer manufacturer that had been sued by Mississippi tax collector J.F. Crenshaw for unpaid taxes on alcohol sold in his state. The court held that under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, states cannot impose direct taxes on goods from other states simply because they are transported into their territory and stored there for future sale or use. This...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: 1904
Docket: 85
198 U.S. 17
25 S. Ct. 552
49 L. Ed. 925
1905 U.S. LEXIS 1152
Argued: Dec 08, 1904

Pabst Brewing Company v. Crenshaw

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1904 case of Pabst Brewing Company v. Crenshaw, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pabst Brewing Company, a Wisconsin-based beer manufacturer that had been sued by Mississippi tax collector J.F. Crenshaw for unpaid taxes on alcohol sold in his state. The court held that under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, states cannot impose direct taxes on goods from other states simply because they are transported into their territory and stored there for future sale or use. This decision was based on previous rulings which established that such actions would interfere with interstate commerce and were therefore unconstitutional. The ruling clarified an important aspect of federalism: while states have broad powers to regulate activities within their borders, these powers do not extend to interfering with interstate commerce - a power reserved exclusively for Congress under Article I Section 8 Clause 3 (the "Commerce Clause") of the U.S Constitution.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the PABST BREWING COMPANY v. CRENSHAW case argued that the Mississippi statute, which imposed a tax on out-of-state breweries selling beer within its borders, did not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as it was an exercise of state police power to regulate alcohol sales and consumption for public health and safety reasons. The justice disagreed with majority's view that this law discriminated against interstate commerce because it taxed only foreign beers while exempting domestic ones from taxation. He believed that states have inherent authority to control liquor traffic within their boundaries under their police powers, including levying taxes or fees on businesses involved in such trade regardless of where they are located or incorporated. Furthermore, he contended that any potential burden on interstate commerce resulting from this tax is incidental and permissible under established constitutional principles allowing states some latitude in regulating local affairs even if they indirectly affect national commercial activities.

Opinion written by Justice EDEWhite
Decided: Apr 17, 1905
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