Standard Oil Co. Of Kentucky v. Tennessee, 217 U.S. 413 (1910)
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.
Standard Oil Co. Of Kentucky v. Tennessee, 217 U.S. 413 (1910)
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 217 U.S. 349, click here.
Standard Oil Co. of Kentucky v. Tennessee No. 160 Argued April 20, 1910 Decided May 2, 1910 217 U.S. 413
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Syllabus
The Fourteenth Amendment will not be construed as introducing a factitious equality without regard to practical differences that are best met by corresponding differences of treatment.
Where a distinction may be made in the evil that delinquents are forced to suffer, a difference in establishing the delinquency may also be justifiable, and a state may provide for a different method of determining the guilt of a corporation from that of an individual without violating the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and so held as to the provisions in the antitrust statute of Tennessee of 1903 prohibiting arrangements for lessening competition under which corporations are proceeded against by bill in equity for ouster, while individuals are proceeded against as criminals by indictment, trial, and punishment on conviction.
A transaction is not necessarily interstate commerce because it relates to a transaction of interstate commerce, and so held that a statute of Tennessee prohibiting arrangements within the state for lessening competition is not void as a regulation of interstate commerce as to sales made by persons without the state to persons within the state.
While a federal question exists as to whether unequal protection of the law is afforded by excluding a class from the defense of the statute of limitations, the construction of the statute as to its scope is for the state court, and does not present a federal question.
120 Tenn. 86 affirmed.
The facts, which involve the constitutionality of certain provisions of the antitrust statute of Tennessee of 1903, are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Standard Oil Co. Of Kentucky v. Tennessee, 217 U.S. 413 (1910) in 217 U.S. 413 217 U.S. 414–217 U.S. 419. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=MTV5XXP1LDP3VXA.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Standard Oil Co. Of Kentucky v. Tennessee, 217 U.S. 413 (1910), in 217 U.S. 413, pp. 217 U.S. 414–217 U.S. 419. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=MTV5XXP1LDP3VXA.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Standard Oil Co. Of Kentucky v. Tennessee, 217 U.S. 413 (1910). cited in 1910, 217 U.S. 413, pp.217 U.S. 414–217 U.S. 419. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=MTV5XXP1LDP3VXA.
|