California v. Zook
336 U.S. 725 · Decided April 25, 1949 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
California v. Zook was decided on April 25, 1949 by a vote of 5–4. The Court reversed the lower court's decision. Justice Frank Murphy wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “State or local business regulation” in the Economic Activity area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 336 U.S. 725 · 69 S. Ct. 841 · 93 L. Ed. 2d 1005 · 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2926
- Docket number
- 355
- Decided
- April 25, 1949
- Argued
- February 8, 1949
- Court era
- Vinson Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority opinion
- Frank Murphy
- Opinion assigned by
- Fred M. Vinson
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- State or local business regulation
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Legal provision
- Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 (interstate commerce clause)
- Type of law
- Constitution
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Majority | |
| Justice Stanley F. Reed | Majority | |
| Justice Felix Frankfurter | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Dissent | |
| Justice Frank Murphy | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Robert H. Jackson | Dissent | |
| Justice Wiley B. Rutledge | Majority | |
| Justice Harold H. Burton | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson | Majority |
Full case caption
California v. Zook et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1948-070, docket 1948-070-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “State or local business regulation”
- H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du MondLaw held unconstitutional
- Daniel v. Family Security Life Insurance Co.
- Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Moore
- Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co. v. Daniel
- Cities Service Gas Co. v. Peerless Oil & Gas Co.
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Oklahoma
Cases on the same legal provision: Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 (interstate commerce clause)
- Interstate Oil Pipe Line Co. v. Stone
- Ott v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co.Altered precedent
- Memphis Natural Gas Co. v. Stone
- Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. MealeyLaw held unconstitutional
- Toomer v. WitsellLaw held unconstitutional
- Capitol Greyhound Lines v. Brice
Same Term, same area (Economic Activity)
- Mandel Brothers, Inc. v. Wallace
- Ford Motor Co. v. United States
- Eckenrode v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
- Kordel v. United States
- United States v. Urbuteit
- Grand River Dam Authority v. Grand-Hydro
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error