InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc., et al. v. Frozen Food Express et al.

351 U.S. 49 · No. 162 · 1955 term · Warren Court

Decided Apr 23, 1956 · argued Mar 7, 1956

Economic activity · Federal and some few state regulation of transportation regulation:truck, or motor carrier

Majority opinion: William Douglas

The voteMajorityDissent

5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent

4 dissents (5–4)

Affirmed. East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc., et al. lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Texas Southern U.S. District Court, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc., et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Wikipedia has no article on this case, so there is no summary.

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1955 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianDouglasBlackWarrenClarkFrankfurterMintonReedHarlanBurton

Majority(5)

Dissent(4)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc., et al.Trucking company, or motor carrier
Respondent
Frozen Food Express et al.Trucking company, or motor carrier
Reached the Court by
Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Interstate Commerce, as amended
Kind of law
Federal Statute
Decided by
Statutory construction; Interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Apr 23, 1956DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed. East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc., et al. lost.
  2. Mar 7, 1956ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the Texas Southern U.S. District Court: petition denied or appeal dismissed.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

25 other argued cases since 1946 on federal and some few state regulation of transportation regulation:truck, or motor carrier, newest first.

  1. Pierce County, Washington v. Ignacio Guillen, Legal Guardian of Jennifer Guillen and Alma Guillen, Minors, et al.537 U.S. 129Jan 14, 2003 · 537 U.S. 129Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  2. Security Services, Inc. v. Kmart Corporation511 U.S. 431May 16, 1994 · 511 U.S. 431Economic activity7–27–2 band
  3. Interstate Commerce Commission et al. v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al.467 U.S. 354Jun 5, 1984 · 467 U.S. 354Economic activity5–45–4 band
  4. Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., et al.419 U.S. 281Dec 23, 1974 · 419 U.S. 281Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  5. United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp.402 U.S. 558Jun 1, 1971 · 402 U.S. 558Economic activity6–36–3 band
  6. American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service et al.397 U.S. 532Apr 20, 1970 · 397 U.S. 532Economic activity5–36–3 band
  7. Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., et al. v. Shannon et al., Doing Business As E. & R. Shannon377 U.S. 311Jun 1, 1964 · 377 U.S. 311Economic activity5–45–4 band
  8. Willis Shaw Frozen Express, Inc., v. United States et al.377 U.S. 159May 4, 1964 · 377 U.S. 159Economic activity6–36–3 band
  9. United States et al. v. J. B. Montgomery, Inc.376 U.S. 389Mar 23, 1964 · 376 U.S. 389Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  10. Hewitt-Robins Incorporated v. Eastern Freight-Ways, Inc.371 U.S. 84Nov 19, 1962 · 371 U.S. 84Economic activity6–36–3 band
  11. United States et al. v. Drum et al.368 U.S. 370Jan 15, 1962 · 368 U.S. 370Economic activity7–27–2 band
  12. Interstate Commerce Commission v. J-T Transport Co., Inc., et al.368 U.S. 81Dec 4, 1961 · 368 U.S. 81Economic activity6–36–3 band
  13. American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al. v. United States et al.364 U.S. 1Jun 27, 1960 · 364 U.S. 1Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  14. T. I. M. E. Incorporated v. United States359 U.S. 464May 18, 1959 · 359 U.S. 464Economic activity5–45–4 band
  15. American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al. v. Frisco Transportation Co.358 U.S. 133Dec 15, 1958 · 358 U.S. 133Economic activity7–18–1 band
  16. United States v. a & P Trucking Co. et al.358 U.S. 121Dec 8, 1958 · 358 U.S. 121Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  17. Public Service Commission of Utah et al. v. United States et al.356 U.S. 421May 19, 1958 · 356 U.S. 421Economic activity5–45–4 band
  18. County of Marin et al. v. United States et al.356 U.S. 412May 19, 1958 · 356 U.S. 412Economic activity5–45–4 band
  19. American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al. v. United States et al.355 U.S. 141Dec 9, 1957 · 355 U.S. 141Economic activity8–18–1 band
  20. Schaffer Transportation Co. et al. v. United States et al.355 U.S. 83Dec 9, 1957 · 355 U.S. 83Economic activity8–18–1 band
  21. United States et al. v. Contract Steel Carriers, Inc.350 U.S. 409Mar 12, 1956 · 350 U.S. 409Economic activity7–27–2 band
  22. American Trucking Associations, Inc. et al. v. United States et al.344 U.S. 298Jan 12, 1953 · 344 U.S. 298Economic activity7–27–2 band
  23. Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States342 U.S. 337Jan 28, 1952 · 342 U.S. 337Economic activity6–36–3 band
  24. United States et al. v. Pacific Coast Wholesalers' Association et al.338 U.S. 689Feb 6, 1950 · 338 U.S. 689Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
  25. United States et al. v. Capital Transit Company et al.338 U.S. 286Nov 14, 1949 · 338 U.S. 286Economic activity5–36–3 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia and the argument audio on Oyez. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.