Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided February 6, 1980No. Civ. 1995Published

1DissentHolmes, Judge

I respectfully dissent.

It is clear to me that the trial court ruled correctly in finding and holding that L&N’s business activity in the instant appeal was not “intrastate.” I believe the following paragraph from L&N’s brief expresses my view exactly and is as follows:

The key issue in this case involves the application of familiar statutory and constitutional language — “intrastate business” and “intrastate earningfs]” — to the undisputed nature of the transportation movements which were the business or commerce and which produced the earnings. L & N’s revenues are derived from charges, fixed…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
  2. Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  3. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. United States v. Yellow Cab Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
  5. Stafford v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1922

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

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

Powered by the Exa API