Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY v. SCOTT, 1911 — 219 U.S. 209 · caselaw · US
General
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY v. SCOTT
219 U.S. 20955 L. Ed. 183·Supreme Court of the United States·1911
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY v. SCOTT.
ERROR TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE COMMONWEALTH OP KENTUCKY.
No. 286.
Argued October 19, 20, 1910.
Decided January 3, 1911.
Decided on authority of Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Riverside Mills, ante, p. 186.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr."Joseph R. Lamar for plaintiff in error in No. 215 and Mr. C. H. Moorman, with whom Mr. Benjamin D. Warjield and Mr. Henry L. Stone were on the brief, for plaintiff in error in this case.
Mr. Wm. S. Kenyon, Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom The Attorney General was on the brief, by leave of the court for the United States, as amicus curice in support of the constitutionality of § 20 of the act of June, 1906.
There was no appearance for defendant in error. •
See ante, p. 186.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Lurton]
Mr. Justice Lurton
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case was heard with No. 215, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Riverside Mills, just decided. Like that case it presents only the question of the constitutionality of the Carmack amendment of the act to regulate commerce.
The facts are not substantially different, and the judgment of the Court of'Appeals of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is affirmed upon the authority of that case.
Ajjirmed.