Citation network
Leisy Vs. Hardin
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 28, 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. 100 (1890) U.S. Supreme Court Leisy v. HardinSearch
-
U.S. 100 (1890) Leisy v. HardinSearch
-
granting to Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states. Peirce v. NewSearch
-
in a like case heretofore tried and determined by this Court involving the same question, in the case of Collins v. HillsSearch
-
sell intoxicating liquors in such county. This was held to be in contravention of the federal Constitution in Bowman v. ChicagoSearch
-
introduces, so that they may become mingled with the common mass of property within the territory entered. Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
Brown v. MarylandSearch
-
is not within the jurisdiction of the police power of the state unless placed there by congressional action. Henderson v. MayorSearch
-
Railroad Co. v. HusenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Robbins v. ShelbySearch
-
full operation until or unless circumscribed by the action of Congress in effectuation of the general power. Cooley v. PortSearch
-
indicates its will Page 135 U. S. 110 that such commerce shall be free and untrammeled. County of Mobile v. KimballSearch
-
Railway v. IllinoisSearch
-
In Brown v. MarylandSearch
-
And although the precise question before us was not ruled in Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
and Brown v. MarylandSearch
-
yet we think it was virtually involved and answered, and that this is demonstrated, among other cases, in Bowman v. ChicagoSearch
-
Court who participated in the decisions did not concur in any common ground upon which to rest them. That of Peirce v. NewSearch
-
The New Hampshire case, the Chief Justice observed, differs from Brown v. MarylandSearch
-
among the states and the exercise of power over purely local commerce and local concerns. The authority of Peirce v. NewSearch
-
to. Page 135 U. S. 119 The doctrine now firmly established is, as stated by MR. JUSTICE FIELD, in Bowman v. ChicagoSearch
-
condition Page 135 U. S. 120 on ship-masters as a prerequisite to the landing of passengers, Henderson v. MayorSearch
-
or diseased, into the state between the first day of March and the first day of November in each year, Railroad Co. v. HusenSearch
-
a tax on his sales, when applied to imported goods in the original packages by him sold for the importer, Cook v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
sale or selling goods, wares, or merchandise by sample, manufactured or belonging to citizens of other states, Robbins v. ShelbySearch
-
Taxing District, 120 U. S. 489 . On the other hand, we have decided in County of Mobile v. KimballSearch
-
in Escanaba Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
in Transportation Co. v. ParkersburgSearch
-
in Brown v. HoustonSearch
-
in Morgan Steamship Co. v. LouisianaSearch
-
in Smith v. AlabamaSearch
-
Railway Co. v. AlabamaSearch
-
engineers to be examined and obtain a license was not in its nature a regulation of commerce, and in Kimmish v. BallSearch
-
run at large, and thereby spread the disease known as the Texas fever, was constitutional. We held also in Welton v. MissouriSearch
-
the growth, produce, or manufacture of the state, is an unconstitutional regulation, and to the same effect in Walling v. MichiganSearch
-
sellers of intoxicating liquors to be shipped into a state from places without it. But it was held in Patterson v. KentuckySearch
-
U. S. 501 , and in Webber v. VirginiaSearch
-
the power of the latter to protect the community from direct danger inherent in particular articles. In Mugler v. KansasSearch
-
And this was in accordance with our decisions in Bartemeyer v. IowaSearch
-
Beer Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U.S. Page 135 U. S. 122 25, and Foster v. KansasSearch
-
U. S. 201 . So in Kidd v. PearsonSearch
-
beyond the limits of the state, was not an undertaking to regulate commerce among the states. And in Eilenbecker v. DistrictSearch
-
which in this particular has been exclusively vested in the general government, and is therefore void. In Mugler v. KansasSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial