New : sens
A windows (pop-into) of information (full-content of Sensagent) triggered by double-clicking any word on your webpage. Give contextual explanation and translation from your sites !
BoggleDean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin
From Wikipedia
| Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin | |
|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued December 7, 1950 Decided January 15, 1951 | |
| Full case name | Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin |
| Citations | 340 U.S. 349 (more) 71 S.Ct. 295; L. Ed. 329 |
| Holding | |
| The ordinance unjustifiably discriminates against interstate commerce, in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution. | |
| Court membership | |
Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson | |
Associate Justices Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton | |
| Case opinions | |
|---|---|
| Majority | Clark, joined by Vinson, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson, Burton |
| Dissent | Black, joined by Douglas, Minton |
Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin, 340 U.S. 349 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Dormant Commerce Clause.
The court held that a municipal ordinance requiring all milk sold in Madison to be pasteurized at an approved plant within 5 miles of the city, unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce.
Illinois milk producer, Dean Milk, on appeal from a state court holding that found the municipal ordinance to be reasonable, charged that the true purpose of the ordinance was to protect local industries from competition from non-local producers.
In the court's opinion, Justice Clark said: "In thus erecting an economic barrier protecting a major local industry against competition from without the state, Madison plainly discriminates against interstate commerce. This it cannot do, even in the exercise of its unquestioned power to protect the health and safety of the people, if reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives... are available".
The fact that in-state producers were also discriminated against was not found to be relevant to the fact that it discriminated against interstate commerce.
Justices Vinson, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton concurred.
Justices Black, Douglas and Minton dissented on the grounds that any imposition on commerce is minor compared to the city's need to insure their milk is healthy without burdening their inspectors.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 340
- City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978)
Further reading
- Eule, Julian N. (1982). [Expression error: Missing operand for > "Laying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Rest"]. The Yale Law Journal 91 (3): 425–485. doi:.
External links
- Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin, 340 U.S. 349 (1951) (opinion full text).
| This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
