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

Rice Et Al. v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. Et Al.

• 1946 • 331 U.S. 218 • Vinson Court
In the case of Rice et al. v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. et al., 1946, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether state laws could apply to a business that had been federally regulated under the United States Warehouse Act (USWA). The plaintiffs, grain producers in Illinois, sued Santa Fe Elevator Corporation for allegedly charging excessive storage rates and violating Illinois' public utilities law. However, Santa Fe argued that they were operating under federal licenses granted by...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 Vinson Court
Term: 1946
Docket: 470
331 U.S. 218
67 S. Ct. 1146
91 L. Ed. 1447
1947 U.S. LEXIS 2938
Argued: Feb 13, 1947

Rice Et Al. v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Rice et al. v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. et al., 1946, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether state laws could apply to a business that had been federally regulated under the United States Warehouse Act (USWA). The plaintiffs, grain producers in Illinois, sued Santa Fe Elevator Corporation for allegedly charging excessive storage rates and violating Illinois' public utilities law. However, Santa Fe argued that they were operating under federal licenses granted by USWA and therefore not subject to state regulation. The court ruled in favor of Santa Fe Elevator Corp., establishing an important precedent regarding federal preemption over state laws when it comes to regulating interstate commerce activities. The decision clarified that if Congress has legislated on a matter within its domain and intended such legislation as a replacement of state law rather than supplementary to it, then states cannot regulate in this area even if their intention is merely protective or complementary.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Rice et al. v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to apply federal law over state law in this case was a departure from established principles of federalism and judicial restraint. He contended that there was no clear indication from Congress that it intended to supersede state laws related to grain storage, as required by precedent for such preemption cases. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how the Court had interpreted similar language in other statutes and suggested these discrepancies indicated an unwarranted expansion of federal power at the expense of states' rights. Ultimately, Frankfurter believed that deference should have been given to Illinois’ regulatory scheme unless there was a direct conflict with specific provisions within the U.S Warehouse Act.

Opinion written by Justice WODouglas
Decided: May 05, 1947
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