Legal Opinion
State v. Wetzel
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided June 20, 1932PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.
The first contention of the defendant is that the provision under which conviction was had is void *608because it imposes an unreasonable burden upon interstate commerce, without any necessity from the standpoint of safety. It is asserted that the section falls within the rule as stated in Michigan Public Utilities Comm. v. Duke, 266 U. S. 570, 45 Sup. Ct. 191, 69 Lawy. Ed. 445, in which the court said:
“But it is well settled that a state has no power to fetter the right to carry on interstate commerce within its borders by the imposition of conditions or regulations which are unnecessary and…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Metropolis Theatre Co. v. City of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Sprout v. South BendSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. DukeSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Sioux Remedy Co. v. CopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Interstate Transit, Inc. v. LindseySupreme Court of the United States · 1931
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Matz v. J. L. Curtis Cartage Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1937
- Howard v. MissmanIdaho Supreme Court · 1959
- State v. Consolidated Freightways Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
- State v. HeitzIdaho Supreme Court · 1951
- Olson v. State Conservation CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.