Happy family

Find a legal form in minutes

Browse US Legal Forms’ largest database of 85k state and industry-specific legal forms.

Validity of Regulations

The validity of all exercises of the police power is tested on the fixed rule and basic standard that the police power of the state extends only to such measures as are reasonable and all police regulations should be reasonable under all circumstances. Statutes and ordinances that regulate the use of vehicles on the public highways and streets should be reasonable and such regulations should be related to a legislative goal.  In reviewing a traffic regulation, the court may view the statute as a whole and consider its purpose and what it regulates[i].

The streets and public highways are dedicated for the primary purpose of travel.  They are for the use of all, upon equal terms, for any purpose consistent with the object for which they are established, subject of course to such valid regulations as prescribed by the constituted authorities for the public convenience, and as far as possible, the rights of all may be conserved without undue discrimination[ii].

The validity of a statute or ordinance is to be determined in view of the general conditions existing at the time when the question arises.  Laws enacted by a state legislature are presumed to be constitutional and the burden is on the party who challenges the law to prove its invalidity.  When classifications are challenged under the equal protection guarantees, they will be upheld if there is any set of facts upon which they could be sustained[iii].

Traffic ordinances are generally presumed to be valid.  A statute dealing with a vehicle’s weight limitations is not unconstitutionally vague when it states what limits are legally permissible and how those limits are arrived at to determine permissible weight. And although the statute is complex, it provides a standard such that a person expected to comply with it need not guess at its meaning or differ as to its application[iv].

Statutes and ordinances regulating vehicles and their use on the public highways and streets must also be definite in specifying the conduct which is condemned or prohibited.  In determining the reasonableness and validity of local traffic regulations, it is important to balance the effect of the ordinance in ensuring health, safety, and welfare of the community against the hardships and difficulties it causes to individuals.

Statutes and ordinances regulating vehicles and their operation upon the public ways should not unjustly discriminate between individuals or classes and grant any of them any special or exclusive right, privilege, or immunity.  Where a general law can be made applicable and whether a general could have been made applicable is a judicial question to be judicially determined without regard to any legislative assertion on that subject.  This proscription applies with equal force to municipalities and their ordinances[v].

However, the applicability of such laws can be limited in accordance with a reasonable classification of persons, subjects, or places.  Therefore, a piece of legislation carrying out a public purpose that is limited in its application if, within the sphere of its operation it affects alike all persons who are similarly situated, will not be declared invalid[vi].

As motor vehicles furnish a suitable mode of travel and transportation, not necessarily inconsistent with the proper use of public highways by others, such highways are open to their use.  However, as they have introduced a new element of danger to travelers on the highways, this fact necessarily compels a higher degree of care from those who operate them.  Accordingly, in exercising their authority to regulate the operation of motor vehicles on public highways, the state or municipality must necessarily put them in a class in which other unlike vehicles are not, and cannot be, included[vii].

The controlling public authority shall prohibit, restrict, or condition the use of motor vehicles, engaged in transportation for hire, on the public highways.  The same rule is applicable to private contract carriers and common carriers.  Commercial motor carriers are generally regulated by the laws of each state.

If a city chooses to grant permission to individuals to conduct a taxicab business in its streets, it can prescribe such terms and conditions as it may see fit, and individuals desiring to avail themselves of such permission should comply with such terms and conditions, whether they are reasonable or unreasonable[viii].  A distinction can be made between private carriers transporting their own property for compensation and those transporting their own property without compensation.

In the absence of an act of Congress covering the subject, a state shall impose upon vehicles using its highways in interstate commerce nondiscriminatory regulations for the purpose of insuring the public safety and convenience, and for the protection and conservation of the use of such highways.

In the absence of discrimination, state action that interferes with or burdens interstate commerce will be struck down if the local interest is not very substantial or if the burdens imposed on interstate commerce are excessive in relation to the putative benefits of the state’s action.  Therefore, when a state law regulates in-state and out-of-state businesses evenhandedly, courts should apply less strict scrutiny or a more lenient balancing test than they would apply in the case of discrimination against interstate commerce[ix].

There is a residuum of power in the state to make laws governing matters of local concern which nevertheless in some measure affects interstate commerce or even, to some extent, regulate it[x].

State highway safety measures carry a strong presumption of validity when challenged in court.  If a statute is neutral and has only indirect effects on interstate commerce, and regulates evenhandedly, the statute shall be upheld unless and until the burden on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.

Statutory regulation of the speed of machines while running on the highways is reasonable and proper for the promotion of the safety of the public.  Driving by indifferent, careless, or incompetent operators of motor vehicles shall be a menace to the safety of the traveling public, and it has been held that under its authority to regulate the use of the streets a city may enact ordinances which may diminish this danger, and for this purpose may regulate the speed of automobiles and control their careless management[xi].

Municipalities retain authority to regulate the operation of motor vehicles over the streets, which are engaged in interstate commerce, and shall require that such vehicles comply with traffic and other general safety regulations.

[i] State v. Bissonette, 445 N.W.2d 843, 845 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).

[ii] Wonewoc v. Taubert, 203 Wis. 73, 78 (Wis. 1930).

[iii] Smith v. Cobb County-Kennestone Hosp. Auth., 262 Ga. 566, 570 (Ga. 1992).

[iv] State v. Krahwinkel, 2002 SD 160, P26 (S.D. 2002).

[v] Hunter Ave. Property, L.P. v. Union Elec. Co., 895 S.W.2d 146 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

[vi] Commonwealth v. Nolan, 189 Ky. 34 (Ky. 1920).

[vii] Id.

[viii] Eason v. Dowdy, 219 Ga. 555, 555-556 (Ga. 1964).

[ix] Fireside Nissan v. Fanning, 30 F.3d 206 (1st Cir. R.I. 1994).

[x] Id.

[xi] Chicago Motor Coach Co. v. Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 206 (Ill. 1929).


Inside Validity of Regulations