LOCATION: First Division Circuit Court, Pulaski County
DOCKET NO.: 76-558
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
CITATION: 434 US 429 (1978)
ARGUED: Nov 08, 1977 / Nov 09, 1977
DECIDED: Feb 21, 1978
Albert Harriman - for appellees
John H. Lederer - for appellants
Facts of the case
Media for Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Rice
- Opinion Announcement - February 21, 1978
- Oral Argument - November 08, 1977
- Oral Argument - November 09, 1977
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 09, 1977 in Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Rice
Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - February 21, 1978 in Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Rice
Warren E. Burger:
The judgment and opinion of the Court in 76-558, Raymond Motor Transports against Wisconsin, and the 76-635, United States Steel Corporation against Multi State Tax Commission will each be announced by Mr. Justice Powell.
Lewis F. Powell, Jr.:
In first of these cases, 76-558, Raymond Motor Transport against Rice, we have an appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Appellants, two intrastate trucking companies, challenge administrative regulations of the Wisconsin Highway Commission on the ground that they unreasonably burden intrastate commerce.
The regulations prevent appellants from operating trucks that are 65 feet long and pull two trailers on four-lane divided highways within the state.
Neighboring states allow these trucks and trailers.
Because of the Wisconsin regulations, appellants intrastate operations into and across Wisconsin are disrupted, costs are raised and services slowed.
The state defended the regulations on safety grounds, but it produced no evidence that the regulations actually contribute to highway safety.
Appellants on the other hand produced substantial evidence that the longer trucks are as safe as other trucks that the state routinely allows to be operated on its highways.
In an opinion filed today with a clerk, we hold that the regulations do unreasonably burden intrastate commerce.
We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the United States District Court.
Mr. Justice Blackmun has filed a concurring opinion in which the Chief Justice and Mr. Justices Brennan and Rehnquist have joined.
Mr. Justice Stevens did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.