Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock · ¶19

Other cases are to similar effect. In Rearick v. Pennsyl vania, 203 U. S. 507 (1906), we held that a Pennsylvania salesman who picked up goods shipped from out of state and delivered them to their final destination was “engaged in interstate commerce” with no indication that he ever left Pennsylvania or interacted with vehicles that had. Id., at 510– 513. In Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412 (1898), we held that a railroad agent who moved a package from a train “platform to [a] freight warehouse” entirely within one State could, in certain circumstances, be “part of . . . interstate commerce transportation.” Id., at 413–414, 426. And in Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 136 U. S. 114 (1890), we held that an intrastate portion of an interstate railroad business was “immediately connected with interstate commerce.” Id., at 119–120; see also id., at 119 (citing The Daniel Ball, 10…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.