Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1918 to 1940

Inc. Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig - Significance, The Cross-appeal, Violation Of The Commerce Clause, Keeping Trade Open Between The States

milk york act court

Appellant

Baldwin, for the state of New York

Appellee

G. A. F. Seelig, Inc.

Appellant's Claim

That G. A. F. Seelig, Inc., a milk distributor, had no right under the New York Milk Control Act to sell milk in New York state, milk that had been purchased outside the state at a price lower than the minimum established by the act.

Justices for the Court

Louis D. Brandeis, Pierce Butler, Benjamin N. Cardozo (writing for the Court), Charles Evans Hughes, James Clark McReynolds, Owen Josephus Roberts, Harlan Fiske Stone, George Sutherland, Willis Van Devanter

Justices Dissenting

None

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

4 March 1935

Decision

The New York Milk Control Act violated the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Related Cases

  • Gibbons v. Ogden, 8 Wheat. 1 (1824).
  • Hood v. DuMond, 336 U.S. 525 (1949).
  • Dean Milk Company v. Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951).

Further Readings

  • Bartholomew, Paul C., and Joseph F. Menez. Summaries of Leading Cases on the U.S. Constitution, 13th ed. Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1990.
  • Chandler, Ralph C., et al. The Constitutional Law Dictionary, Vol. 2. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, 1987.
  • Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Additional Topics

Inc. Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig - Significance

Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc. reinforced federal control over interstate commerce, making it difficult for states to use alleged health concerns as a pretext for keeping out products from other states in order to protect their own industries. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc. was a milk distributor that bought its milk from a creamery in Fair Haven, Vermont and sold it in its home state of New York. Every …

Inc. Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig - The Cross-appeal

New York took its case to the Supreme Court on a cross-appeal, which meant that Baldwin was now the appellant, and G. A. F. Seelig the appellee. As noted by Justice Cardozo, who would give the Court's opinion, New York did not attempt to assert that it had authority to regulate the price paid for milk in Vermont; nor did it claim power to prevent anyone from bringing in milk from Vermont (assuming…

Inc. Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig - Violation Of The Commerce Clause

Justice Cardozo gave the Court's opinion, the only opinion on record for the case. He began by clarifying the issue, stating that New York was only trying to limit the sale of milk purchased from another state, not the purchase itself. But even so, Cardozo noted, the act violated the Constitution and presented a barrier to interstate traffic every bit as effective as the tariff by which independen…

Inc. Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig - Keeping Trade Open Between The States

Cardozo did not deny states the right to prevent the sale of products which fail to meet their health standards. However, he opposed the use of such standards as a means of protecting local industry. Thus the Court struck down Baldwin's cross-appeal on the issue of selling the milk to individual consumers. There is no evidence that the opinion of the Court was less than unanimous. Baldwin was not …

Benjamin Gitlow Trials: 1920-25 - Darrow For The Defense, "i Ask No Clemency", The Fourteenth Amendment, Unnoticed Landmark, Gitlow V. Stalin [next] [back] Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority - Significance, Brandeis Proposes "ashwander Rules", Louis Brandeis

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or

Vote down Vote up

almost 4 years ago

thank you very much!