 | This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued December 8–9, 1896 Decided March 22, 1897 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association |
| Citations | 166 U.S. 290 (more)17 S. Ct. 540; 41 L. Ed. 1007; 1897 U.S. LEXIS 2025 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 53 F. 440 (C.C.D. Kan. 1892); affirmed, 58 F. 58 (8th Cir. 1893). |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Peckham, joined by Fuller, Harlan, Brewer, Brown |
| Dissent | White, joined by Field, Gray, Shiras |
| Laws applied | |
| Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 | |
United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290 (1897), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Sherman Act (which was an antitrust measure that prohibited anticompetitive behavior in commerce) applied to the railroad industry, even though the U.S. Congress had enacted a comprehensive regime of regulations for that industry.
Background
Various railroad companies had formed an organization to regulate prices charged for transportation. The federal government charged these companies with violating the Sherman Act, and the railroad companies replied that they were not in violation of the act because their organization was designed to keep prices low, not to push them higher. The companies also contended that Congress had not intended the Sherman Act to apply to them, because there were already a wide array of laws governing the railroads.
Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court held that the Sherman Act prohibited all such combinations, irrespective of the purpose. The railroad association was price fixing under the per se approach. Competition should determine the reasonable rate, not agreements between companies. The court further held that congressional debate could not be used to decipher legislative intent due to the complex and often varying opinions on what the act means for different legislators
 | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (April 2013) |
See also
| Sources on rule of reason | |
|---|---|
| US v. Trans-Missouri Freight Asn, 166 U.S. 290 (1897) | |
| US v. Joint Traffic Association, 171 U.S. 505 (1898) | |
| Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. v. US, 175 U.S. 211 (1899) | |
| Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. US, 221 U.S. 1 (1911) | |
| Chicago Board of Trade v. US, 246 U.S. 231 (1918) | |
| United States v. Topco Assocs., Inc., 405 U.S. 596 (1972) | |
| National Soc. of Prof. Engineers v. US, 435 U.S. 679 (1978) | |
| Broadcast Music v. Columbia Broadcast, 441 U.S. 1 (1979) | |
| Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 441 U.S. 1 (1979) | |
| Arizona v. Maricopa County Med Soc, 457 U.S. 332 (1982) | |
| NCAA v. University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984) | |
| FTC v. Indiana Fed'n of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986) | |
| Palmer v. BRG of Georgia, Inc., 498 U.S. 46 (1990) | |
| California Dental Assn. v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756 (1999) | |
| See US antitrust law and rule of reason |
References
- United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U.S. 290 (1897).
- Tally, J. O. "The Supreme Court, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Freight Rate Battle". North Carolina Law Review. 25 (2): 189.
- Landry, Michael; Stone (2003). "The Trans-Missouri Case: Does the Sherman Act Apply to Railroads?". Essays in Economic & Business History. 21: 132–133.
External links
Works related to United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association at Wikisource- Text of United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290 (1897) is available from: Justia Library of Congress
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |