Supreme Court· 5/25/1959
Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.
Citations
- 359 U.S. 520
- 79 S. Ct. 962
- 3 L. Ed. 2d 1003
- 1959 U.S. LEXIS 1777
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that an exercise by the state of its police power is presumed to be valid when it is challenged under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
- concerning regulation inimical to the orderly movement of good across state lines
- \This is one of those casesfew in numberwhere local safety measures that are nondiscriminatory place an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.\
- \The various exercises by the States of their police power... are entitled to the same presumption of validity when challenged under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\
- state regulation furthering public safety, but burdening commerce held permissible
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Douglas, Harlan, Stewart
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
274 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSupreme Court· 1963-06-17· cited 1,897×
- Goldblatt v. Town of HempsteadSupreme Court· 1962-05-14· cited 810×
- Huron Portland Cement Co. v. City of DetroitSupreme Court· 1960-04-25· cited 626×
- C & a Carbone, Inc. v. Town of ClarkstownSupreme Court· 1994-05-16· cited 524×
- City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc.Supreme Court· 1973-05-14· cited 506×
- Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp.Supreme Court· 1976-06-24· cited 454×
- General Motors Corp. v. TracySupreme Court· 1997-02-18· cited 447×
- Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. BairSupreme Court· 1978-10-02· cited 361×
- Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc. v. RiceSupreme Court· 1978-02-21· cited 341×
- Goldstein v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1973-06-18· cited 302×
- Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Del.Supreme Court· 1981-03-24· cited 295×
- Head v. New Mexico Board of Examiners in OptometrySupreme Court· 1963-06-17· cited 268×
- Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority District v. Delta Airlines, Inc.Supreme Court· 1972-04-19· cited 232×
- Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission v. Continental Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court· 1963-04-22· cited 199×
- American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. v. Sidamon-EristoffThird Circuit· 2012-01-05· cited 179×
- United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co.New Mexico Supreme Court· 1980-08-29· cited 166×
- National Paint & Coatings Association v. City of ChicagoSeventh Circuit· 1995-01-24· cited 152×
- Sullivan v. Oracle Corp.California Supreme Court· 2011-06-30· cited 131×
- Karr v. SchmidtFifth Circuit· 1972-04-28· cited 131×
- Weigel v. MarylandD. Maryland· 2013-06-19· cited 125×
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court· 1955-05-09· cited 2,938×
- Sproles v. BinfordSupreme Court· 1932-05-23· cited 480×
- South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros.Supreme Court· 1938-02-14· cited 424×
- Public Util. Comm'n of Cal. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1958-04-14· cited 369×
- Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. MissouriSupreme Court· 1952-03-03· cited 333×
- Lincoln Federal Labor Union v. Northwestern Iron & Metal Co.Supreme Court· 1949-01-01· cited 288×
- Morgan v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 1946-06-03· cited 172×
- Maurer v. HamiltonSupreme Court· 1940-04-22· cited 162×
- Service Storage & Transfer Co. v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 1959-03-30· cited 71×
- The People v. WarrenIllinois Supreme Court· 1957-05-23· cited 48×
- Rudolf Express Co. v. BibbIllinois Supreme Court· 1958-09-18· cited 5×
- Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. v. BibbS.D. Illinois· 1958-02-26· cited 3×
Other cases named Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
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.