Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

PHILADELPHIA AND READING RAILWAY COMPANY v. UNATES STATES OF AMERICA; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND ALLENTOWN PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY (1916)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
PHILADELPHIA AND READING RAILWAY COMPANY v. UNATES STATES OF AMERICA; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND ALLENTOWN PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY
Term: 1915
Important Dates
Argued: October 18, 1915
Decided: February 28, 1916
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
8-0
Majority
William Rufus DayOliver Wendell HolmesCharles Evans HughesJoseph McKennaJames Clark McReynoldsMahlon PitneyWillis Van DevanterEdward Douglass White

PHILADELPHIA AND READING RAILWAY COMPANY v. UNATES STATES OF AMERICA; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND ALLENTOWN PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 28, 1916. The case was argued before the court on October 18, 1915.

In an 8-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. The case originated from the Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1910s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the White Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Economic Activity - Federal or state regulation of transportation regulation: railroad
  • Petitioner: Railroad
  • Petitioner state: Unknown
  • Respondent type: United States
  • Respondent state: Unknown
  • Citation: 240 U.S. 334
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Appeal
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: Edward Douglass White
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: James Clark McReynolds

These data points were accessed from The Supreme Court Database, which also attempts to categorize the ideological direction of the court's ruling in each case. This case's ruling was categorized as conservative.

See also

External links

Footnotes