Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Minnesota: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Remove useless "case citation" links per Wikipedia:Bot_requests#remove_link_of_case_citations_to_case_citation (plus misc fixes), Replaced: 1 using [[Project:AutoWikiBrowser|AWB |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
|LawsApplied= |
|LawsApplied= |
||
}} |
}} |
||
'''''Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company v. Minnesota''''', |
'''''Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company v. Minnesota''''', 134 U.S. 418 (1890),<ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=134&page=418 134 U.S. 418] Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.</ref> was a case in which the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] held that substantive [[due process]] limits state regulatory power over railroad rates. A regulatory agency in Minnesota had set railroad rates that the [[Minnesota Supreme Court]] had refused to overturn. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the rates were set without due process of law, specifically without an opportunity to challenge the equality and reasonableness of the charges. The Minnesota court had sanctioned rate-setting without any judicial hearing, requirement of notice or witnesses, "-in fact, nothing which has the semblance of due process of law"<ref>134 U.S. 418, 457</ref>. |
||
The court rejected the railroad's argument that the state's contract with the Minnesota railroad line, as it existed in prior state-chartered companies that the railroad later bought, remained in force against state law. Instead, they found that the state's right to regulate industry could not be forfeited except by an explicit declaration in law. However, this issue was subsumed by the court's broader decision regarding due process. |
The court rejected the railroad's argument that the state's contract with the Minnesota railroad line, as it existed in prior state-chartered companies that the railroad later bought, remained in force against state law. Instead, they found that the state's right to regulate industry could not be forfeited except by an explicit declaration in law. However, this issue was subsumed by the court's broader decision regarding due process. |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
[[Category:History of Minnesota]] |
[[Category:History of Minnesota]] |
||
[[Category:Rail transport in Minnesota]] |
[[Category:Rail transport in Minnesota]] |
||
{{SCOTUS-case-stub}} |
{{SCOTUS-case-stub}} |
||
Revision as of 19:02, 12 May 2009
| Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company v. Minnesota | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided March 24, 1890 | |
| Full case name | Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company v. State of Minnesota ex rel. Railroad and Warehouse Commission |
| Citations | 134 U.S. 418 (more) |
| Holding | |
| Substantive due process applies to state regulatory action. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Blatchford, joined by Fuller, Field, Harlan, Brewer |
| Concurrence | Fuller |
| Dissent | Bradley, joined by Gray, Lamar |
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 418 (1890),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that substantive due process limits state regulatory power over railroad rates. A regulatory agency in Minnesota had set railroad rates that the Minnesota Supreme Court had refused to overturn. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the rates were set without due process of law, specifically without an opportunity to challenge the equality and reasonableness of the charges. The Minnesota court had sanctioned rate-setting without any judicial hearing, requirement of notice or witnesses, "-in fact, nothing which has the semblance of due process of law"[2].
The court rejected the railroad's argument that the state's contract with the Minnesota railroad line, as it existed in prior state-chartered companies that the railroad later bought, remained in force against state law. Instead, they found that the state's right to regulate industry could not be forfeited except by an explicit declaration in law. However, this issue was subsumed by the court's broader decision regarding due process.
Justice Bradley strongly dissented from the decision, indicating that it practically overturned Munn v. Illinois and other railroad cases that left states to decide toll rates. He indicated that it was the provence of the states to decide the policy question of railroad rates, and not that of the judiciary.
See also
References
- ^ 134 U.S. 418 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
- ^ 134 U.S. 418, 457
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |