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

Pittsburgh Melting Company v. Totten, Inspector Of The Bureau Of Animal Industry Of The Department Of Agriculture

• 1918 • 248 U.S. 1 • White Court
In the case of Pittsburgh Melting Company v. Totten, Inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry of the Department of Agriculture in 1918, Pittsburgh Melting Company (PMC) challenged a federal regulation that required them to have their products inspected by government officials before they could be sold. PMC argued that this requirement was an unconstitutional violation of their rights under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it interfered with their ability to conduct business...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 White Court
Term: 1918
Docket: 28
248 U.S. 1
39 S. Ct. 3
63 L. Ed. 97
1918 U.S. LEXIS 1735
Argued: Apr 22, 1918

Pittsburgh Melting Company v. Totten, Inspector Of The Bureau Of Animal Industry Of The Department Of Agriculture

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Pittsburgh Melting Company v. Totten, Inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry of the Department of Agriculture in 1918, Pittsburgh Melting Company (PMC) challenged a federal regulation that required them to have their products inspected by government officials before they could be sold. PMC argued that this requirement was an unconstitutional violation of their rights under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it interfered with their ability to conduct business freely and without unnecessary governmental intrusion. However, The Supreme Court ruled against PMC stating that such inspections were within Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce and did not violate any constitutional rights. The court held that these regulations served a valid public health purpose and thus were justified under the Commerce Clause as reasonable measures for ensuring food safety across state lines.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Pittsburgh Melting Company v. Totten, Inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry of the Department Agriculture, 1918 was not explicitly stated in available legal documents or resources. Therefore, it is impossible to provide a summary for this specific request. The Supreme Court's decisions and opinions are typically well-documented; however, there may be instances where certain details such as individual justice's dissenting opinions might not be readily accessible or recorded.

Opinion written by Justice WRDay
Decided: Nov 04, 1918
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