Legal Opinion

The Mason and Dixon Lines Inc. v. Kirk Steudle

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided June 26, 2012No. 11-1183, 11-1186PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MERRITT, Circuit Judge.

The basic question before us is whether the State of Michigan acts in a proprietary capacity as a “market participant” rather than as a government regulator when it contracts with a private bridge company to divide up the work of building new ramps and roads that will connect various interstates with the Ambassador Bridge. We hold that, for purposes of the Commerce Clause and the plaintiffs’ statutory claims, the State is acting in a proprietary capacity here and, like the private bridge company, takes the role of a market participant when it joins with the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
  2. Williams v. CurtinCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2011
  3. Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Jones v. City of CincinnatiCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
  5. Reeves, Inc. v. StakeSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers Local 3047 v. Hardin CountyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2016
  2. Thomas v. City of Port Arthur, TexasDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 2025
  3. UAW v. Hardin Cnty., Ky.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API