Transit Commission v. United States, 289 U.S. 121 (1933)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Transit Commission v. United States, 289 U.S. 121 (1933)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 289 U.S. 113, click here.
Transit Commission v. United States No. 535 Argued March 13, 14, 1933 Decided April 10, 1933 289 U.S. 121
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
l. By paragraphs 18-20 of § 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act (added by the Transportation Act, 1920), Congress intended to confer on the Interstate Commerce Commission plenary power to limit the expenditures of interstate carriers for construction or operation to lines of railroad reasonably necessary for the service of the public. P. 127.
2. The Act is to be construed so that this authority may be fully effective. P. 128.
3. Extension of the traffic of an interstate carrier beyond its own terminus over the line and to and from the terminus of another carrier, under a trackage agreement allowing it the use of these facilities jointly with their owner, is an "extension" of the railroad of the lessee or licensee and an "operation of a line of railroad" by it within the meaning of § 1(18) of the Interstate Commerce Act, and the making of such agreement and its terms, including the rental, are subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission to the exclusion of state authority. P. 128.
4. Where such joint use began before the date of the Transportation Act under an agreement approved by the state, and was continued after that date and after the agreement had expired, the arrangement, and the terms of a new agreement for it, necessarily fell within the provisions of § 1(18). P. 129.
1 F.Supp. 595 affirmed.
Appeal from a decree of the District Court of three judges denying a preliminary injunction and dismissing the bill in a suit to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Transit Commission v. United States, 289 U.S. 121 (1933) in 289 U.S. 121 289 U.S. 122–289 U.S. 123. Original Sources, accessed November 10, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4BXBZUWSSSESIB3.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Transit Commission v. United States, 289 U.S. 121 (1933), in 289 U.S. 121, pp. 289 U.S. 122–289 U.S. 123. Original Sources. 10 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4BXBZUWSSSESIB3.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Transit Commission v. United States, 289 U.S. 121 (1933). cited in 1933, 289 U.S. 121, pp.289 U.S. 122–289 U.S. 123. Original Sources, retrieved 10 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4BXBZUWSSSESIB3.
|