Motor Trading Co. v. Ingels

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Southern Pacific Co.

    208 Cal.App.2d 745 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 1 times

    It is not debatable that, with exceptions not relevant here, when property is separated from the stream of interstate commerce and has become intermingled with the mass of property within the state, it is subject to and protected by state law. ( In re Maier, 103 Cal. 476 [37 P. 402, 42 Am.St.Rep. 129]; Motor Trading Co. v. Ingels, 43 Cal.App.2d 20 [ 110 P.2d 132].) Were the cattle still in interstate commerce at the time of the alleged offense?

  2. State ex Rel. Bouthillier v. Farrell

    166 P.2d 812 (Or. 1946)   Cited 2 times

    The fund into which such fees are carried includes moneys collected in the general administration of the state motor vehicle act, and it is used to defray the expenses of administration of that act. A revolving fund of $10,000 is maintained, and any surplus is transferred monthly to the state highway fund. It is not clear, therefore, that the additional fees are devoted mainly to the expense of administering the act. California also has a statute resembling ours. A similar bond is required, and an additional fee of $5. The constitutionality of the statute was tested in Motor Trading Co. v. Ingels (1941), 43 Cal.App.2d 20, 110 P.2d 132. The court thought that it was not necessary to go beyond the commerce clause of the federal constitution to decide the case. It held that, in its practical operation, the statute discriminated "against dealers in interstate commerce by arbitrary classification and the imposition of onerous conditions based solely upon the origin of vehicles in another state", and was, therefore, in contravention of the commerce clause.

  3. State v. Kimbrough

    3 So. 2d 424 (Ala. 1941)   Cited 2 times

    In February of the present year, the Court of Appeals of California, First District, held the California act unconstitutional. Motor Trading Co. et al. v. Ingels, 110 P.2d 132. In March of this year the Supreme Court of Minnesota held the Minnesota statute unconstitutional.

  4. State v. Kimbrough

    3 So. 2d 421 (Ala. Crim. App. 1941)   Cited 1 times

    "In February of the present year, the Court of Appeals of California, First District, held the California act unconstitutional. Motor Trading Co. et al. v. Ingels, 110 P.2d 132. "In March of this year the Supreme Court of Minnesota held the Minnesota statute unconstitutional.