STATE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS

Authors

Paul G. Kauper, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

After the decision in Buck v. Kuykendall, the question naturally arose whether a State could require an interstate carrier to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity in order to engage in intrastate business. The question is important because it is possible that interstate business cannot be conducted profitably on a given route without the benefit of supplemental earnings derived from intrastate business. No doubt was entertained by state commissions after the Buck case that they could still exercise plenary control over the intrastate operations of interstate carriers, and deny them permission to engage in intrastate business if existing intrastate service was already adequate. The courts of Massachusetts and New Hampshire in well considered decisions adopted this view. Finally, in Interstate Busses Corporation v. Holyoke Street Railway Co., the Supreme Court took the same view; it held that the State can require the interstate motor carrier to secure a certificate of convenience and necessity in order to do intrastate business, and can deny such certificate if necessary to preserve existing intrastate transportation facilities. This seems sound. Intrastate business and interstate business have always been regarded as separate units for the purposes of regulation, at least in the absence of Congressional legislation. The States have been allowed to exercise full control over intrastate commerce.

Recommended Citation

Paul G. Kauper, STATE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS, 31 Mich. L. Rev. 1097 (1933).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol31/iss8/4