Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.
- Decided
- May 5, 1947
- Docket
- NO. 470
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,636 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that “absent clear and manifest direction from Congress, historic police powers of the states will generally not be superseded by the federal law.” — Asad v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (2004)
- explaining that state law is pre-empted where it produces a result inconsistent with the objective of a federal statute — North Dakota v. United States (1990)
- holding that if the matter is in any way regulated by the federal government, “the federal scheme prevails though it is a more modest, less pervasive regulatory plan than that of the State” — Renteria v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent (2025)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Douglas, announced by Mr. Justice Black.
Respondents in these two cases are warehousemen engaged in the business of operating public warehouses for the storage of grain in Illinois. Their warehouses are operated under licenses issued by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the United States Warehouse Act, 39 Stat. 486, as amended, 7 U. S. C. § 241 et seq. The Rice partnership, one of the petitioners, is an owner, shipper, and dealer in grain and is a customer of respondents. The Illinois Commerce Commission, another petitioner, has certain regulatory jurisdiction, to which we will later refer, over public grain warehouses and other public utility companies.
In 1944 Rice filed a complaint with the Commission, charging respondents[1] with maintaining unjust, unreason [*221] able, and excessive rates and charges contrary to the Illinois Public Utilities Act, Ill. Rev. Stats. 1945, oh. Ill 2/3. It charged them with discrimination in storage rates in favor of the Federal Government and its agencies and against other customers, contrary to the Public Utilities Act and the Illinois Grain Warehouse Act, Ill. Rev. Stats. 1945, ch. 114, § 189 et seq. It alleged that respondents were both warehousemen and dealers in grain and by reason of those dual and conflicting positions had received undue preferences and advantages to the detriment of and in discrimination against petitioners and other customers of respondents,[2] all in violation of provisions of the Public Utilities Act, the Grain Warehouse Act, or the Illinois Constitution of 1870, Article XIII. It charged respondents with having failed to provide reasonable, safe, and adequate public grain warehouse service and facilities, with issuing securities, with abandoning service, and with entering into various contracts with [*222] their affiliates without prior approval of the Commission; with rendering storage and warehousing services without having filed and published their rates; with operating without a state license; and with mixing public grain with grains of different grades — all in violation of provisions of the Public Utilities Act or the Grain Warehouse Act. Among the remedies sought were the fixing of just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rates, the prohibition of unlawful discriminatory practices, the establishment of reasonable, safe and adequate storage and warehousing service, and the assessment of penalties for violations of Illinois law, including the cancellation of grain warehouse licenses.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (1947)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.