Skip to main content
· 6/8/1914

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Georgia

Citations

  • 234 U.S. 280
  • 34 S. Ct. 829
  • 58 L. Ed. 1312
  • 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1149

Syllabus

<p>The existence of difference of opinion as to which is the best form of necessary safety device does not preclude the exercise of legislative discretion; and so far as the question is simply one of expediency the legislature is competent to decide it.</p> <p>The criticism that a police statute requires a carrier to comply with conditions beyond its control and, therefore, deprives it of its property without due process of law, is not open in this court if the state court has construed the statute as not so requiring the carrier.</p> <p>The state court having held -that the term “railroad company” as used in a state police statute is inclusive of natural persons operating a railroad and that the statute is not unconstitutional as denying equal protection of the law to railroad corporations because it does not include natural persons, this court concurs in that view.</p> <p>A state police statute requiring railroad companies to use a specified safety device is not unconstitutional as denying equal protection of the laws because it does not affect receivers operating railroads; in view of the temporary and special character of a receiver’s management, the classification is reasonable and proper.</p> <p>In the absence of legislation by Congress, the States may exercise their powers to secure safety in the physical operation of railroad trains within their territory, even though such trains are used in interstate commerce.</p> <p>In regulating interstate trains as to matters in regard to which Congress has not acted, a State may not make arbitrary requirements as to safety devices; but its requirements are not invalid as interfering with interstate commerce because another State, in the exercise of the same power, has imposed, or may impose, a different requirement.</p> <p>Congress may, whenever it pleases, make the rule and establish the standard to be observed on interstate highways.</p> <p>None of the safety appliance statutes enacted by Congress relate to or regula

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “It does not appear, however, . . . 3 (...continued

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hughes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.