Citation network
Mccall Vs. California
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 19, 1890
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
-
U.S. 104 (1890) U.S. Supreme Court McCall v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. 104 (1890) McCall v. CaliforniaSearch
-
commerce, and therefore violative of the commercial clause of the Constitution. In the recent case of Lying v. StateSearch
-
In County of Mobile v. KimballSearch
-
of this Court, a tax upon a means or an occupation of carrying on interstate commerce, pure and simple. In Robbins v. ShelbySearch
-
of the United States, and was therefore void. Page 136 U. S. 110 A like decision was rendered in Leloup v. PortSearch
-
of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640 , and in Asher v. TexasSearch
-
U. S. 129 , both of these decisions were carefully considered and the principle was affirmed. In Stoutenburgh v. HennickSearch
-
principle governing the cases to which we have referred was again carefully considered and affirmed. See also Pickard v. PullmanSearch
-
U. S. 230 , and the recent cases of Leisy v. HardinSearch
-
U. S. 100 , and Lyng v. MichiganSearch
-
with the amount of business done by the agent. The court below relied mainly upon Norfolk & Western Railroad Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Pembina Mining Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 181 , and Smith v. AlabamaSearch
-
a separate opinion, reversing the judgment of the court below, post, 136 U. S. 114 . Pembina Mining Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
p. 125 U. S. 184 , quoting at some length from Paul v. VirginiaSearch
-
a qualification of this doctrine was expressed in Pensacola Telegraph Company v. WesternSearch
-
The reference to Pensacola Telegraph Company v. WesternSearch
-
announced no doctrine not in harmony with the principles of the later decisions to which we have referred. Smith v. AlabamaSearch
-
that is not in harmony with the doctrines we have asserted in this case. That opinion quoted at length from Sherlock v. AllingSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court McCall v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of Lying v. StateSearch
-
In Robbins v. ShelbySearch
-
Leloup v. PortSearch
-
Asher v. TexasSearch
-
In Stoutenburgh v. HennickSearch
-
Pickard v. PullmanSearch
-
of Leisy v. HardinSearch
-
and Lyng v. MichiganSearch
-
Norfolk & Western Railroad Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
and Smith v. AlabamaSearch
-
Paul v. VirginiaSearch
-
Pensacola Telegraph Company v. WesternSearch
-
Smith v. AlabamaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial