Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Powell Vs. Pennsylvania

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 09, 1888

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

26 entries 5 linked 21 unlinked
Show
  1. Barbier Vs. Connolly US Supreme Court · Jan 05, 1885
  2. Yick Wo Vs. Hopkins US Supreme Court · May 10, 1886
  3. Soon Hing Vs. Crowley US Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1885
  4. Mugler Vs. Kansas US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1887
    Relied / Followed
  5. Fletcher Vs. Peck US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1810
  6. U.S. 678 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Powell v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  7. U.S. 678 (1888) Powell v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  8. state. 114 Penn.St. 265. This case, in its important aspects, is governed by the principles announced in Mugler v. Kansas
    Search
  9. and that the Fourteenth Amendment was not designed to interfere with the exercise of that power by the states. Mugler v. Kansas
    Search
  10. Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent
    Search
  11. dairy products and fraud in the sale thereof, it has in fact no real or substantial relation to those objects. Mugler v. Kansas
    Search
  12. See also Fletcher v. Peck
    Search
  13. Dartmouth College v. Woodward
    Search
  14. Livingston v. Darlington
    Search
  15. thus recognizing and preserving the principle of equality among those engaged in the same business. Barbier v. Connolly
    Search
  16. Railway Co. v. Humes
    Search
  17. of his property without that compensation required by law. This contention is without merit, as was held in Mugler v. Kansas
    Search
  18. and irrelevant. The case is therefore to be considered as if the proof offered had been received. Scotland County v. Hill
    Search
  19. It is involved in the right to pursue one's happiness. This doctrine is happily expressed and illustrated in People v. Marx
    Search
  20. U. S. 623 . In Watertown v. Mayo
    Search
  21. of property, but the prohibition of its use and sale is nothing less than confiscation. As I said in Bartemeyer v. Iowa
    Search
  22. U.S. Supreme Court Powell v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  23. People v. Marx
    Search
  24. In Watertown v. Mayo
    Search
  25. Scotland County v. Hill
    Search
  26. Bartemeyer v. Iowa
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial