LAW
GPO-CONAN-2017-10-15.pdf

225 state farm ins co v duel 324 us 154 1945 226

Info icon This preview shows pages 53–55. Sign up to view the full content.

225 State Farm Ins. Co. v. Duel, 324 U.S. 154 (1945). 226 Watson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 348 U.S. 66 (1954). Simi- larly a statute requiring a foreign hospital corporation to dispose of farm land not necessary to the conduct of their business was invalid even though the hospital, be- cause of changed economic conditions, was unable to recoup its original investment from the sale. New Orleans Debenture Redemption Co. v. Louisiana, 180 U.S. 320 (1901). 1885 AMENDMENT 14—RIGHTS GUARANTEED
Image of page 53

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

to prohibit combinations in restraint of trade. 227 Thus, states could prohibit agreements to pool and fix prices, divide net earnings, and prevent competition in the purchase and sale of grain. 228 Further, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not preclude a state from adopting a policy prohibiting competing corporations from combinations, even when such combinations were induced by good intentions and from which benefit and no injury have re- sulted. 229 The Court also upheld a variety of statutes prohibiting activities taken by individual businesses intended to harm competi- tors 230 or restrain the trade of others. 231 Laws and ordinances tending to prevent frauds by requiring hon- est weights and measures in the sale of articles of general consump- tion have long been considered lawful exertions of the police power. 232 Thus, a prohibition on the issuance or sale by other than an autho- rized weigher of any weight certificate for grain weighed at any ware- house or elevator where state weighers are stationed is not uncon- stitutional. 233 Similarly, the power of a state to prescribe standard 227 See , e.g. , Grenada Lumber Co. v. Mississippi, 217 U.S. 433 (1910) (statute prohibiting retail lumber dealers from agreeing not to purchase materials from whole- salers selling directly to consumers in the retailers’ localities upheld); Aikens v. Wis- consin, 195 U.S. 194 (1904) (law punishing combinations for “maliciously” injuring a rival in the same business, profession, or trade upheld). 228 Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U.S. 447 (1905). See Waters Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86 (1909); National Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas, 197 U.S. 115 (1905), also up- holding antitrust laws. 229 International Harvester Co. v. Missouri, 234 U.S. 199 (1914). See also Ameri- can Machine Co. v. Kentucky, 236 U.S. 660 (1915). 230 Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U.S. 157 (1912) (prohibition on intentionally destroying competition of a rival business by making sales at a lower rate, after considering distance, in one section of the State than in another upheld). But cf. Fairmont Co. v. Minnesota, 274 U.S. 1 (1927) (invalidating on liberty of con- tract grounds similar statute punishing dealers in cream who pay higher prices in one locality than in another, the Court finding no reasonable relation between the statute’s sanctions and the anticipated evil). 231 Old Dearborn Co. v. Seagram Corp., 299 U.S. 183 (1936) (prohibition of con- tracts requiring that commodities identified by trademark will not be sold by the vendee or subsequent vendees except at prices stipulated by the original vendor up- held); Pep Boys v. Pyroil, 299 U.S. 198 (1936) (same); Safeway Stores v. Oklahoma Grocers, 360 U.S. 334 (1959) (application of an unfair sales act to enjoin a retail
Image of page 54
Image of page 55
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern