State v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
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
- Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United States v. Yellow Cab Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Stafford v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.