California v. Zook et al. (336 U.S. 725)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 25, 1949 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 336 U.S. 725 · 69 S. Ct. 841
- Docket
- No. 355
- Argued
- February 8, 1949
- Decided
- April 25, 1949
- Term
- October Term 1948
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Murphy
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Reed, Justice Black, Justice Rutledge, Justice Murphy (wrote)
- Dissenting
- Justice Burton (wrote), Justice R. H. Jackson, Justice Douglas, Justice Frankfurter (wrote)
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Murphy delivered the opinion of the Court. A California statute prohibits the sale or arrangement of any transportation over the public highways of the State if the transporting carrier has no permit from the Interstate Commerce Commission. The federal Motor Carrier Act has substantially the same provision. The question is whether the state act as applied in this case is invalid in view of the federal act. Respondents operate a travel bureau in Los Angeles, and receive commissions for arranging “share-expense” passenger transportation in automobiles. Owners of private cars desiring passengers for a trip register with respondents’ agency, as do prospective passengers. State lines are crossed in many of the trips. Until 1942 the federal act specifically exempted such “casual, occasional, or reciprocal” transportation. But in that year the Interstate Commerce Commission removed the exemption, as the Motor Carrier Act empowered it to do. Both the California and federal statutes now require respondents to sell transportation only in carriers having permits from the I. C. C. Respondents were prosecuted under the state act. They admitted their unlawful activity, but demurred to the criminal complaint on the sole ground that the state statute entered an exclusive congressional domain. The trial court disagreed, and entered a judgment of conviction, but the appellate court…
Excerpt of a 128,174-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.