Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Mid-Con Freight Systems, Inc., et al. v. Michigan Public Service Commission, et al.

Date: 06-20-2005

Case Number: 03–1234

Judge: Breyer

Court: Supreme Court of the United States on appeal from the Court of Appeals of Michigan

Plaintiff's Attorney: Unknown

Defendant's Attorney: Unknown

Description:

Federal law requires most interstate truckers to obtain a permit (Federal
Permit) that reflects compliance with certain federal requirements.
The 1965 version of the law authorized States to require proof that a truck operator had such a permit. By 1991, 39 States demanded such proof, requiring a $10 per truck registration fee (State Registration) and giving each trucker a stamp to affix to a multistate "bingo card" carried in the vehicle. Finding this scheme inefficient and burdensome, Congress created the current SingleState Registration System (SSRS), which allows a trucking company to fill out one set of forms in one State (base State), thereby registering
its Federal Permit in every participating State through which its trucks travel. 49 U. S. C. §14504(c). The base State can demand proof of the Federal Permit, proof of insurance, the name of an agent to receive service of process, and a fee equal to the sum of the individual
state fees. §§14504(c)(2)(A)(i)–(iv). The SSRS prohibits a State from imposing any additional "State registration requirement." §14504(b). Michigan Comp. Laws Ann. §478.2(2) imposes an annual $100 fee on each Michigan license-plated truck operating entirely in interstate commerce. Petitioner interstate trucking companies subject
to §478.2(2) sought to have it invalidated, but the Michigan Court of Claims refused. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding
that, because the fee is imposed for the administration of the State's Motor Carrier Act and for enforcement of state safety regulations,
it is not a "registration requirement" pre-empted by §14504(b).

* * *


Click the case caption above for the full text of this opinion.

Outcome:
Section §14504 does not pre-empt Michigan’s $100 fee.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Unknown
Defendant's Experts:
Unknown
Comments:
None

About This Case

What was the outcome of Mid-Con Freight Systems, Inc., et al. v. Michigan Public ...?

The outcome was: Section §14504 does not pre-empt Michigan’s $100 fee.

Which court heard Mid-Con Freight Systems, Inc., et al. v. Michigan Public ...?

This case was heard in Supreme Court of the United States on appeal from the Court of Appeals of Michigan, MI. The presiding judge was Breyer.

Who were the attorneys in Mid-Con Freight Systems, Inc., et al. v. Michigan Public ...?

Plaintiff's attorney: Unknown. Defendant's attorney: Unknown.

When was Mid-Con Freight Systems, Inc., et al. v. Michigan Public ... decided?

This case was decided on June 20, 2005.