View source for Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC
|ArgueDate=December 9
|ArgueYear=1910
|DecideDate=February 20
|DecideYear=1911
|FullName=Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. [[Interstate Commerce Commission]]
|USVol=219
|USPage=498
|ParallelCitations=31 S. Ct. 279; 55 [[L. Ed.]] 310; 1911 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 1650
|Prior=Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Texas
|Subsequent=
|Holding=
|Majority=McKenna
|JoinMajority=''unanimous''
|LawsApplied=[[United States Constitution|U.S. Const.]]
}}
'''''Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC''''', 219 U.S. 498 (1911), was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] decision that held that while normally, in order for the court to hear a case, there must still be a controversy outstanding, when the issue was such that it would be of short duration, and would most likely become moot before appellate review could take place, and that the issue was likely to reoccur, then the court could hear the issue.<ref>{{ussc|name=Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC|volume=219|page=498|pin=|year=1911}}.</ref>
==Issue==
A division of the [[Southern Pacific Transportation Company|Southern Pacific Railroad]] was aiding a [[cottonseed]] exporter in the [[Port of Galveston]] by negotiating discount wharf fees on his behalf in exchange for requiring farmers to haul the crop exclusively in Southern Pacific railcars.  When the [[Interstate Commerce Commission]] challenged the arrangement as anti-competitive, the contract was terminated but the ICC felt similar [[Tying (commerce)|product tying]] would reoccur once the case was dismissed as [[Mootness|moot]].
==The court's decision==
The court referred to this condition as, {{Blockquote|The case is not moot where interests of a public character are asserted by the Government under conditions that may be immediately repeated, merely because the particular order involved has expired... The rule that this court will only determine actual controversies, and will dismiss if events have transpired pending appeal which render it impossible to grant the appellant effectual relief does not apply to an appeal involving [a government] order .. merely because that order has expired. Such orders are usually continuing and capable of repetition, and their consideration, and the determination of the right of the Government and the carriers to redress, should not be defeated on account of the shortness of their term.}}
This condition, known as "capable of repetition, yet evading review,"<ref>219 U.S. at 515.</ref> has allowed the court to take cases which it otherwise would be unable to decide upon, because the appellant would otherwise have no grounds to appeal.  This issue has become important in a number of areas including [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] cases involving press coverage of trials,<ref>{{ussc|name=Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia|volume=448|page=555|pin=|year=1980}}.</ref> and to statutes involving abortion.<ref>{{ussc|name=Roe v. Wade|volume=410|page=113|pin=|year=1973}}.</ref>
==See also==
* ''[[Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States]]'': military cotton contracts
* ''[[Ware & Leland v. Mobile County]]'': federal jurisdiction on cotton futures
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 219]]
==References==
{{Reflist}}
==External links==
* {{caselaw source
| case = ''Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC'', {{ussc|219|498|1911|el=no}}
| courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/97365/so-pac-terminal-co-v-int-comm-comm/
| findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/219/498.html
| googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13301202630571879224
| justia =https://supreme.justia.com/us/219/498/case.html
| loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep219/usrep219498/usrep219498.pdf
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Southern Pacific Terminal Co. V. Icc}}
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the White Court]]
[[Category:1911 in United States case law]]
[[Category:Interstate Commerce Commission litigation]]
[[Category:Southern Pacific Railroad]]
[[Category:Cotton industry in the United States]]
[[Category:History of Galveston, Texas]]
[[Category:1911 in case law]]
[[Category:1911 in rail transport]]
[[Category:United States railway case law]]
[[Category:Cottonseed oil]]
{{SCOTUS-case-stub}}