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

United States v. Delaware, Lackawanna And Western Railroad Company

• 1914 • 238 U.S. 516 • White Court
In the case of United States v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company (1914), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The dispute arose when the Interstate Commerce Commission ordered a reduction in freight rates on anthracite coal transported by several railroads including Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company. The commission believed that existing rates were unreasonable and discriminatory against smaller shippers who could not negotiate better...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: 1914
Docket: 517
238 U.S. 516
35 S. Ct. 873
59 L. Ed. 1438
1915 U.S. LEXIS 1584
Argued: Dec 09, 1914

United States v. Delaware, Lackawanna And Western Railroad Company

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of United States v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company (1914), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The dispute arose when the Interstate Commerce Commission ordered a reduction in freight rates on anthracite coal transported by several railroads including Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company. The commission believed that existing rates were unreasonable and discriminatory against smaller shippers who could not negotiate better terms due to lack of volume or bargaining power. However, upon review, the Supreme Court found no evidence supporting these claims made by the commission about unreasonableness or discrimination in rate-setting practices by these railroads. Therefore, it held that without such proof from substantial evidence presented before them during trial proceedings at lower courts level - which was lacking here - they cannot uphold this order issued under authority granted to them through federal legislation known as Hepburn Act (1906). This ruling thus affirmed rights for private corporations like railroads to set their own prices within certain limits unless proven otherwise with sufficient factual basis.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's ruling that a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in maintaining safety measures. He argued that there was no legal basis to hold the company responsible as it had not violated any specific statutory duty or regulation. Furthermore, he contended that even if such a violation occurred, it would not necessarily mean that the company should bear all financial responsibility for resulting injuries or damages. Instead of focusing on whether regulations were breached, Holmes suggested courts should consider whether reasonable care was taken under circumstances at hand - an approach more aligned with common law principles of negligence liability rather than strict regulatory compliance.

Opinion written by Justice JRLamar
Decided: Jun 21, 1915
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