Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison: Difference between revisions
Legalskeptic (talk | contribs) added wikisource link |
Added free to read link in citations with OAbot #oabot |
||
(26 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}} |
|||
{{Infobox SCOTUS case |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case |
||
| Litigants = Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin |
| Litigants = Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin |
||
Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
| USVol = 340 |
| USVol = 340 |
||
| USPage = 349 |
| USPage = 349 |
||
| |
| ParallelCitations = 71 S. Ct. 295; 95 [[L. Ed.]] 329 |
||
| Prior = |
| Prior = |
||
| Subsequent = |
| Subsequent = |
||
| Holding = The ordinance unjustifiably discriminates against interstate commerce, in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution. |
| Holding = The ordinance unjustifiably discriminates against interstate commerce, in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution. |
||
| SCOTUS = 1949-1953 |
|||
| Majority = Clark |
| Majority = Clark |
||
| JoinMajority = Vinson, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson, Burton |
| JoinMajority = Vinson, Reed, Frankfurter, Jackson, Burton |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
{{wikisource|Dean Milk Company v. City of Madison, Wisconsin}} |
{{wikisource|Dean Milk Company v. City of Madison, Wisconsin}} |
||
'''''Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin''''', |
'''''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]], used to prohibit states from limiting interstate commerce. |
||
==Facts== |
|||
The court held that a municipal ordinance requiring all [[milk]] sold in [[Madison, Wisconsin|Madison]] to be [[Pasteurization|pasteurized]] at an approved plant within 5 miles of the city, unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce. |
The court held that a municipal ordinance requiring all [[milk]] sold in [[Madison, Wisconsin|Madison]] to be [[Pasteurization|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. |
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. |
||
==Decision== |
|||
In the court's opinion, Justice [[Tom C. Clark|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". |
In the court's opinion, Justice [[Tom C. Clark|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". |
||
Line 39: | Line 41: | ||
==Further reading== |
==Further reading== |
||
*{{cite journal |last=Eule |first=Julian N. |
*{{cite journal |last=Eule |first=Julian N. |year=1982 |title=Laying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Rest |journal=The Yale Law Journal |volume=91 |issue=3 |pages=425–485 |doi=10.2307/795926|publisher=The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. |jstor=795926 |url=https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/20.500.13051/16123/2/32_91YaleLJ425_1981_1982_.pdf }} |
||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
*{{caselaw source |
*{{caselaw source |
||
|case=''Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin,'' 340 |
| case=''Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin,'' {{ussc|340|349|1951|el=no}} |
||
| courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/104847/dean-milk-co-v-madison/ |
|||
|findlaw=http://laws.findlaw.com/us/340/349.html |
|||
| googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6710112819833473115 |
|||
|justia= |
| justia=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/340/349/ |
||
| loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep340/usrep340349/usrep340349.pdf |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{USArticleI}} |
|||
[[Category:1951 in United States case law]] |
[[Category:1951 in United States case law]] |
||
[[Category:United States Constitution Article One case law]] |
|||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]] |
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]] |
||
[[Category:United States |
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson Court]] |
||
[[Category:United States Dormant Commerce Clause case law]] |
|||
[[Category:History of Madison, Wisconsin]] |
|||
[[Category:Food safety in the United States]] |
|||
[[Category:United States consumer protection case law]] |
|||
[[Category:Dairy farming in the United States]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 16:54, 19 December 2023
Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin | |
---|---|
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; 95 L. Ed. 329 |
Holding | |
The ordinance unjustifiably discriminates against interstate commerce, in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution. | |
Court membership | |
| |
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, used to prohibit states from limiting interstate commerce.
Facts
[edit]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.
Decision
[edit]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
[edit]- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 340
- City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978)
Further reading
[edit]- Eule, Julian N. (1982). "Laying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Rest" (PDF). The Yale Law Journal. 91 (3). The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.: 425–485. doi:10.2307/795926. JSTOR 795926.
External links
[edit]- Text of Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin, 340 U.S. 349 (1951) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress
- 1951 in United States case law
- United States Constitution Article One case law
- United States Supreme Court cases
- United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson Court
- United States Dormant Commerce Clause case law
- History of Madison, Wisconsin
- Food safety in the United States
- United States consumer protection case law
- Dairy farming in the United States
- United States Supreme Court stubs