Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey

Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey, 569 U.S. 251 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that federal laws deregulating the transportation industry do not invalidate corresponding state provisions that regulate the seizure, storage, and sale of cars by towing companies.[1] Robert Pelkey sued Dan's City Used Cars under New Hampshire law for unlawfully selling his vehicle. A lower court raised doubts as to whether the New Hampshire statute was valid at all, as Dan's City argued it was pre-empted by federal deregulation law, specifically, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, and the case eventually arrived before the Supreme Court.[2] Agreeing with Pelkey, the justices named several conditions necessary for federal law to override state transportation regulations and narrowed the range of state transport laws subject to pre-emption.[3]

Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey
Argued March 20, 2013
Decided May 13, 2013
Full case nameDan's City Used Cars, Inc. DBA Dan's City Auto Body v. Pelkey
Docket no.12-52
Citations569 U.S. 251 (more)
133 S. Ct. 1769; 185 L. Ed. 2d 909
ArgumentOral argument
Holding
Pelkey's claims against the tow company's impoundment and auction of his car do not relate to the transportation of property, and are not preempted by federal law. New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajorityGinsburg, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1)

See also

edit

References

edit
  1. ^ Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey, 569 U.S. 251 (2013).
  2. ^ "Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey". The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved September 1, 2014.
  3. ^ Gupta, Deepak (May 16, 2013). "Opinion analysis: Unanimous Justices recognize "massive" limit on transportation preemption". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved September 1, 2014.
edit