United States ex rel. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Chicago, K. & S. R.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Michigan
Hearing on Petition for Mandamus to compel respondent, company to file annual report under the provisions of the interstate commerce act.
1Opinion of the Court
SEVERENS, District Judge.
In this case I am of opinion that the question is not. so wide as seems to be assumed or contended in the briefs and argument for the commission; that is to say, it is not whether a railway carrier operating a line wholly in a single state, which “hauls traffic in process of transportation t.o or from another state,” is subject to the power of congress to regulate com merce, hut is whether by the interstate commerce act it is, by that test alone, made subject to its regulations. The question here, therefore, must he determined by the pro visions of that act. It…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati. N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. Bellaire, Z. & C. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1897
3Cited by6 opinions
- United States v. Colorado & N. W. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- United States v. Colorado & N. W. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- Porter v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- United States ex rel. Kellogg v. Lehigh Val. R.District Court, W.D. New York · 1902
- Denver & R. G. R. v. Baer Bros. Mercantile Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.