[183] New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932).
[184] Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 531-532, 535-537, 539 (1934). In reaching this conclusion the Court might be said to have elevated to the status of prevailing doctrine the views advanced in previous decisions by dissenting Justices. Thus, Justice Stone, dissenting in Ribnik v. McBride, 277 U.S. 350, 350-360 (1928) had declared: "Price regulation is within the State's power whenever any combination of circumstances seriously curtails the regulative force of competition so that buyers or sellers are placed at such a disadvantage in the bargaining struggle that a legislature might reasonably anticipate serious consequences to the community as a whole." In his dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 202, 302-303 (1932), Justice Brandeis had also observed that: "The notion of a distinct category of business 'affected with a public interest' employing property 'devoted to a public use' rests upon historical error. In my opinion the true principle is that the State's power extends to every regulation of any business reasonably required and appropriate for the public protection. I find in the due process clause no other limitation upon the character or the scope of regulation permissible."
[185] Justice McReynolds, speaking for the dissenting Justices, labelled the controls imposed by the challenged statute as a "fanciful scheme to protect the farmer against undue exactions by prescribing the price at which milk disposed of by him at will may be resold." Intimating that the New York statute was as efficacious as a safety regulation which required "householders to pour oil on their roofs as a means of curbing the spread of a neighborhood fire," Justice McReynolds insisted that "this Court must have regard to the wisdom of the enactment," and must determine "whether the means proposed have reasonable relation to something within legislative power."—291 U.S. 502, 556, 558 (1934).
[186] 313 U.S. 236, 246 (1941).
[187] 277 U.S. 350 (1928).
[188] 94 U.S. 113 (1877). See also Peik v. Chicago & N.W.R. Co., 94 U.S. 164 (1877).
[189] Rate-making is deemed to be one species of price fixing. Power Comm'n v. Pipeline Co., 315 U.S. 575, 603 (1942).
[190] Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934).
[191] 96 U.S. 97 (1878). See also Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897).
[192] 116 U.S. 307 (1886).