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

Pure Oil Company v. State Of Minnesota

• 1918 • 248 U.S. 158 • White Court
In the case of Pure Oil Company v. State of Minnesota, 1918, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state's right to regulate interstate commerce within its borders. The Pure Oil Company had challenged a Minnesota law that required all petroleum products sold in the state to be inspected and tested for safety before being distributed. The company argued this was an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce as it imposed additional costs on out-of-state businesses. However,...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: 74
248 U.S. 158
39 S. Ct. 35
63 L. Ed. 180
1918 U.S. LEXIS 1704
Argued: Nov 21, 1918

Pure Oil Company v. State Of Minnesota

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Pure Oil Company v. State of Minnesota, 1918, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state's right to regulate interstate commerce within its borders. The Pure Oil Company had challenged a Minnesota law that required all petroleum products sold in the state to be inspected and tested for safety before being distributed. The company argued this was an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce as it imposed additional costs on out-of-state businesses. However, Justice Day delivered the opinion of a unanimous court stating that while states cannot directly regulate or burden interstate commerce, they can exercise their police powers to protect public health and safety even if it indirectly affects such trade. Therefore, requiring inspection and testing for quality control purposes was deemed reasonable regulation rather than an undue burden on interstate commerce.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Pure Oil Company v. State of Minnesota, it was argued that the state's imposition of a tax on oil companies operating within its borders did not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The justice believed that states have an inherent right to levy taxes on businesses conducting operations within their jurisdiction as part of their power to regulate local affairs and protect public welfare. They contended that this taxation does not interfere with interstate commerce because it is applied equally to all oil companies in Minnesota, regardless if they are based out-of-state or locally. Therefore, there is no discrimination against interstate commerce which would make such a tax unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.

Opinion written by Justice JHClarke
Decided: Dec 09, 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