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

South Carolina State Highway Department Et Al. v. Barnwell Brothers, Inc., Et Al.

• 1937 • 303 U.S. 177 • Hughes Court
The U.S. Supreme Court case South Carolina State Highway Department et al. v. Barnwell Brothers, Inc., et al., 1937 revolved around the issue of state regulations on interstate commerce and their constitutionality under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Barnwell Brothers, a trucking company from North Carolina, challenged South Carolina's laws that limited width and weight of trucks using its highways as they believed it was an undue burden on interstate commerce. However, in a...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 Hughes Court
Term: 1937
Docket: 161
303 U.S. 177
58 S. Ct. 510
82 L. Ed. 734
1938 U.S. LEXIS 360
Argued: Jan 04, 1938

South Carolina State Highway Department Et Al. v. Barnwell Brothers, Inc., Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court case South Carolina State Highway Department et al. v. Barnwell Brothers, Inc., et al., 1937 revolved around the issue of state regulations on interstate commerce and their constitutionality under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Barnwell Brothers, a trucking company from North Carolina, challenged South Carolina's laws that limited width and weight of trucks using its highways as they believed it was an undue burden on interstate commerce. However, in a unanimous decision by Justice Benjamin N Cardozo for the court held that these restrictions were not unconstitutional because they served a legitimate public interest - safety on highways - and did not discriminate against out-of-state businesses since both in-state and out-of-state vehicles had to abide by them equally.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Brothers, Inc., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law restricting truck width and weight on highways was an infringement upon interstate commerce. He contended that such regulations should be determined by Congress rather than individual states, as they directly affect trade between states. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how different states regulate vehicle size and weight which could potentially disrupt uniformity in national transportation policy. In his view, these discrepancies underscored the need for federal regulation of interstate commerce to ensure consistency across state lines.

Opinion written by Justice HFStone
Decided: Feb 14, 1938
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