World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Kidd v. Pearson

Article Id: WHEBN0007625159
Reproduction Date:

Title: Kidd v. Pearson  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: United States Commerce Clause case law, History of Iowa, Commerce Clause, United States Supreme Court cases of the Fuller Court, List of United States Supreme Court cases
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Kidd v. Pearson

Kidd v. Pearson
Argued April 4, 1888
Decided October 22, 1888
Full case name J. S. Kidd v. I. E. Pearson
Citations 128 U.S. 1 (more)
9 S. Ct. 6; 32 L. Ed. 346; 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2193
Prior history Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa
Subsequent history None
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
Case opinions
Majority Lamar, 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 Supreme Court of the United States held that a distinction between manufacturing and commerce meant that an Iowa law that prohibited the manufacture of alcohol (in this case for sale out-of-state) was constitutional as it did not conflict with the power of the US Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Contents

  • Background 1
  • Question before the Supreme Court 2
  • Decision of the Court 3
  • See also 4
  • References 5
  • Further reading 6
  • External links 7

Background

An Iowa state law made the manufacturing of liquor in Iowa illegal, even though the liquor was being sold out-of-state.

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. Therefore the law was valid.[1][2]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Kidd v. Pearson - 128 U.S. 1 (1888)". Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 17 January 2014. 
  2. ^ "Kidd v. Pearson - 128 U.S. 1 (1888)". Retrieved 17 January 2014. 

Further reading

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

External links

  • Oyez
  • Findlaw


This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.