Citation network
Douglas Vs. Seacoast Products, Inc.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 23, 1977
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Douglas v. SeacoastSearch
-
Products, Inc. - 431 U.S. 265 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Douglas v. SeacoastSearch
-
Products, Inc., 431 U.S. 265 (1977) Douglas v. SeacoastSearch
-
federally licensed, from fishing for menhaden in Virginia's waters. Pp. 431 U. S. 271 -287. (a) Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
II Seacoast advances a number of theories to support affirmance of the judgment below. See Fusari v. SteinbergSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of our practice of deciding statutory claims first to avoid unnecessary constitutional adjudications. See Hagans v. LavineSearch
-
The well known principles of preemption have been rehearsed only recently in our decisions. See, e.g., Jones v. RathSearch
-
Jones v. RathSearch
-
that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.' Rice v. SantaSearch
-
Anderson v. PacificSearch
-
have, Page 431 U. S. 275 however, is the historic decision of Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall in Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
conservation and environmental protection measures otherwise within their police power. For example, in Smith v. MarylandSearch
-
validity of a statute discriminating against nonresidents. Ibid. To the same effect is the holding in Manchester v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Id. at 139 U. S. 265 . More recently, the same principle was applied in Huron Portland Cement Co. v. DetroitSearch
-
that Congress has ratified the statutory interpretation of Gibbons and its progeny. See Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySearch
-
Francis v. SouthernSearch
-
See Harman v. ChicagoSearch
-
today that such power Page 431 U. S. 282 exists where there is some effect on interstate commerce. Perez v. UnitedSearch
-
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. UnitedSearch
-
to processing plants, is certainly activity which Congress could conclude affects interstate commerce. Cf. Toomer v. WitsellSearch
-
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. PaulSearch
-
a). But when Congress made this grant pursuant to the Property Clause of the Constitution, see Alabama v. TexasSearch
-
United States v. LouisianaSearch
-
Wiggins Ferry Co. v. EastSearch
-
Missouri v. HollandSearch
-
Takahashi v. FishSearch
-
Allenberg Cotton Co. v. PittmanSearch
-
Graham v. RichardsonSearch
-
by the state courts as applied to individual resident aliens. That result is certainly plausible. See Takahashi v. FishSearch
-
McCready v. VirginiaSearch
-
Alaska v. ArcticSearch
-
alone, may well be less than the preemptive reach of statutes passed by Congress pursuant to the power . Cf. Wickard v. FilburnSearch
-
New Deal legislative program, broadly construed its powers under the Commerce Clause at this time. See, e.g., Wickard v. FilburnSearch
-
size restriction. Furthermore, the cases upon which appellant relies are factually distinguishable. In McCready v. VirginiaSearch
-
and Geer v. ConnecticutSearch
-
neither petitioner asserted a claim under a preemptive Act of Congress. Smith v. MarylandSearch
-
How. 71 (1855), Manchester v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Douglas v. SeacoastSearch
-
See Fusari v. SteinbergSearch
-
See Hagans v. LavineSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial