Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd.
United States Supreme Court
460 U.S. 533, 103 S. Ct. 1343, 75 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1983)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. (Thurston) (plaintiff) was a common carrier that was authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission to transport commodities. As a common carrier, Thurston was required by the Interstate Commerce Act to collect tariffs from its customers. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd. (Rand) (defendant) was a customer of Thurston. After Rand failed to pay over $660 in tariffs for transport services, Thurston filed a lawsuit in federal district court to recover the unpaid fees. Thurston asserted that the district court had federal-question jurisdiction over the case under the Interstate Commerce Act. The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the case arose under state contract law rather than the Interstate Commerce Act. Thurston appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal. In doing so, the court of appeals attempted to distinguish Thurston’s case from Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Rice, in which the United States Supreme Court held that a railroad’s attempt to recover unpaid tariffs regulated by the Interstate Commerce Act was a federal question over which federal-question jurisdiction could be exercised. The court of appeals argued that the result in Rice depended on the defense asserted by the defendant in that case rather than on the complaint filed by the plaintiff railroad. The court of appeals also suggested that Rice was no longer good law, though the United States Supreme Court had never overruled its decision in the case. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.