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

Railroad Commission Of The State Of Mississippi v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company

• 1911 • 225 U.S. 272 • White Court
In the case of Railroad Commission of the State of Mississippi v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, 1911, the U.S Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether a state railroad commission had authority to set intrastate freight rates that were lower than interstate rates for a private railroad company. The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company argued that this violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and interfered with interstate commerce. The court ruled in favor of...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: 1911
Docket: 903
225 U.S. 272
32 S. Ct. 756
56 L. Ed. 1087
1912 U.S. LEXIS 2086

Railroad Commission Of The State Of Mississippi v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Railroad Commission of the State of Mississippi v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, 1911, the U.S Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether a state railroad commission had authority to set intrastate freight rates that were lower than interstate rates for a private railroad company. The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company argued that this violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and interfered with interstate commerce. The court ruled in favor of the railroad company stating that while states have power over local trade within their borders, they cannot use this power in such a way as to materially obstruct or burden interstate commerce. Therefore, it was concluded that setting intrastate rates lower than those charged for similar services on an interstate basis constituted undue discrimination against interstate commerce and thus infringed upon federal jurisdiction.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Railroad Commission of the State of Mississippi v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company argued that the majority's decision was an overreach and undermined state authority. The dissenters believed that it was within a state's rights to regulate commerce within its borders, including setting railroad rates, as long as those regulations did not interfere with interstate commerce or violate federal law. They contended that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove that Mississippi's rate-setting had such effects and thus should have been upheld by the court. Furthermore, they criticized the majority for failing to give due deference to local authorities' understanding of their own economic conditions and needs. In essence, they felt this ruling represented unwarranted judicial activism at odds with principles of federalism.

Opinion written by Justice EDEWhite
Decided: Jun 07, 1912
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