 | This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please help improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (July 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
1928 United States Supreme Court case
| Black and White Taxicab and Transfer Company v. Brown and Yellow Taxicab and Transfer Company | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued January 13, 16, 1928 Decided April 9, 1928 | |
| Full case name | Black and White Taxicab and Transfer Company v. Brown and Yellow Taxicab and Transfer Company |
| Citations | 276 U.S. 518 (more)48 S. Ct. 404; 72 L. Ed. 681 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Judgment for plaintiff, W.D. Ky.; affirmed, 15 F.2d 509 (C.C.A. 6th 1926); cert. granted, 273 U.S. 690 (1927) |
| Holding | |
| In suit in federal court to restrain interference with railroad's contract granting exclusive privileges to plaintiff taxicab company in soliciting patronage at depot, federal courts are not bound by Kentucky decisions that such contracts are invalid, since, in determining questions of general law, federal courts are free to exercise their own independent judgment. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Butler, joined by Taft, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, Sanford |
| Dissent | Holmes, joined by Brandeis, Stone |
| Overruled by | |
| Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins | |
Black and White Taxicab and Transfer Company v. Brown and Yellow Taxicab and Transfer Company, 276 U.S. 518 (1928), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court refused to hold that federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction must apply state common law. Ten years later, in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, the Court reversed course, and overturned Swift v. Tyson.
It is most famous for the dissent of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Case details
Brown and Yellow Cab Company, a Kentucky corporation, sought to create a business association with the Louisville and Nashville Railroad, where Brown and Yellow would have a monopoly on soliciting passengers of the railroad station in Bowling Green, Kentucky, effectively eliminating the competition, the Black and White Cab Co. Such an agreement was illegal under Kentucky common law, as interpreted by Kentucky's highest court. Brown and Yellow dissolved itself, reincorporated in Tennessee, and executed the agreement there, where such an agreement was legal, bringing suit against Black and White in a Kentucky federal court to prevent them from soliciting passengers. The federal court upheld the agreement, citing Swift, and arguing that under general federal common law, the agreement was valid.
See also
External links
Works related to Black and White Taxicab Company v. Brown and Yellow Taxicab Company at Wikisource- Text of Black and White Taxicab Co. v. Brown and Yellow Taxicab Co., 276 U.S. 518 (1928) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |
 | This article about transportation in Kentucky is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |
- 1928 in United States case law
- United States Constitution Article Three case law
- United States conflict of laws case law
- Diversity jurisdiction case law
- Federal common law case law
- Overruled United States Supreme Court decisions
- United States antitrust case law
- United States Erie Doctrine
- United States Supreme Court cases
- United States Supreme Court cases of the Taft Court
- Louisville and Nashville Railroad
- Bowling Green, Kentucky
- Taxis of the United States
- United States Supreme Court stubs
- Kentucky transportation stubs