Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Yellow Transportation, Inc. v. Michigan

United States Supreme Court
537 U.S. 36 (2002)


Facts

In 1965, Congress authorized states to collect fees for each vehicle operated by an interstate transportation company within state borders. Under its reciprocity policy, the State of Michigan (defendant) did not impose registration fees for vehicles registered in states that did not impose fees for Michigan-registered vehicles. As a result, Yellow Transportation, Inc. (Yellow Transportation) (plaintiff) was not required to pay Michigan registration fees for some of its trucks. Congress later passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), 49 U.S.C. § 11506, with the goal of maintaining state revenue flows while reducing the burden on carriers. The ISTEA directed the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to create a new single-state registration system that minimized costs of compliance by capping per-vehicle fees at the level that each state was charging as of November 15, 1991. To implement the ISTEA, the ICC promulgated regulations that required participating states to cap their fees at the level charged under existing reciprocity agreements. Thereafter, Michigan altered its reciprocity agreement, requiring Yellow Transportation to pay registration fees. Yellow Transportation brought suit against Michigan in the Michigan Court of Claims, arguing that Michigan’s collection of fees violated the ISTEA’s fee-cap provision. The court of claims ruled in Yellow Transportation’s favor, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether Michigan was required to enforce the ICC’s interpretation of the ISTEA’s fee-cap provision.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Stevens, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.