Kidd v. Pearson

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Kidd v. Pearson
U.S. LEXIS
2193
Case history
PriorError to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa
SubsequentNone
Holding
There is no conflict and the state law is valid. The Court erected a distinction between manufacture and commerce. The state law regulated manufacturing only. A broad view of commerce that embraces manufacturing would also embrace the power to regulate "every branch of human industry."
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
Lucius Q. C. Lamar II
Case opinion
MajorityLamar, joined by Miller, Field, Bradley, Harlan, Matthews, Gray, Blatchford
Fuller took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888), was a case in which the

interstate commerce
.

Background

In 1882, Iowa became a

commerce clause
.

Question before the Supreme Court

Is there a conflict between the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Decision of the Court

The court ruled that there was not a conflict between Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce and the state law covering manufacturing within a given state. Therefore, the law was valid.[1]

See also

References

  1. ^ Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888).

Further reading

  • Fedora, H. Appleton (1940). "The Commerce Clause, the State's Police Power and Intoxicating Liquors". Kentucky Law Journal. 29: 66.

External links