Misplaced Pages

Cooley v. Board of Wardens

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Cooley v. Board of Wardens" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (May 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
1852 United States Supreme Court case
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 9–11, 1852
Decided March 2, 1852
Full case nameAaron B. Cooley, Plaintiff in Error v. The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of Distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children, Defendants
Citations53 U.S. 299 (more)12 How. 299; 13 L. Ed. 996
Holding
The Commerce Clause extends to laws related to pilotage. State laws related to commerce powers can be valid if Congress is silent on the matter.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Roger B. Taney
Associate Justices
John McLean · James M. Wayne
John Catron · John McKinley
Peter V. Daniel · Samuel Nelson
Robert C. Grier · Benjamin R. Curtis
Case opinions
MajorityCurtis, joined by Taney, Catron, Nelson, Grier
ConcurrenceDaniel
DissentMcLean, joined by Wayne
McKinley took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Commerce Clause

Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 299 (1852), was a US Supreme Court case that held that a Pennsylvania law requiring all ships entering or leaving Philadelphia to hire a local pilot did not violate the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. Those who did not comply with the law had been required to pay a fee.

Benjamin R. Curtis wrote for the majority, "It is the opinion of a majority of the court that the mere grant to Congress of the power to regulate commerce, did not deprive the States of power to regulate pilots, and that although Congress had legislated on this subject, its legislation manifests an intention, with a single exception, not to regulate this subject, but to leave its regulation to the several states."

The legal historian Charles W. McCurdy viewed Cooley as a defining case, which clarified the Court's hitherto-contradictory jurisprudence on state powers over interstate commerce. David Currie said Curtis' interpretation of the commerce clause remained definitive for nearly a century after Cooley was decided.

See also

References

  1. McCurdy, Charles W. (1978). "American Law and the Marketing Structure of the Large Corporation, 1875–1890". The Journal of Economic History. 38 (3): 636. doi:10.1017/S0022050700082590. JSTOR 2119473. S2CID 154586775.
  2. Currie, David P. (1983). "The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Contracts and Commerce 1836–1864". Duke Law Journal. 1983 (3): 506.

External links

Taney Court (1836–1864)
Justices
Decisions
By volume
Pet.
How.
Black
Wall.
By topic
Landmark
Statutes
U.S. Supreme Court Article I case law
Enumeration Clause of Section II
Qualifications Clauses of Sections II and III
Elections Clause of Section IV
Speech or Debate Clause of Section VI
Origination Clause of Section VII
Presentment Clause of Section VII
Taxing and Spending Clause of Section VIII
Commerce Clause of Section VIII
Dormant Commerce Clause
Others
Coinage Clause of Section VIII
Legal Tender Cases
Copyright Clause of Section VIII
Copyright Act of 1790
Patent Act of 1793
Patent infringement case law
Patentability case law
Copyright Act of 1831
Copyright Act of 1870
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
International Copyright Act of 1891
Copyright Act of 1909
Patent misuse case law
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
Lanham Act
Copyright Act of 1976
Other copyright cases
Other patent cases
Other trademark cases
Necessary and Proper Clause of Section VIII
Habeas corpus Suspension Clause of Section IX
No Bills of Attainder or Ex post facto Laws Clause of Section IX
Contract Clause of Section X
Legal Tender Cases
Others
Import-Export Clause of Section X
Compact Clause of Section X
Categories: