Citation network
Plumley Vs. Massachusetts
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 10, 1894
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. 461 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Plumley v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U.S. 461 (1894) Plumley v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Constitution of the United States investing Congress with power to regulate commerce among the several states. Leisy v. HardinSearch
-
Pervear v. CommonwealthSearch
-
only question the learned counsel for the petitioner urges upon our attention, and, in view of the decision in Powell v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
states have surrendered to the general government the power to prevent fraud in the sales of property. Railroad Co. v. HusenSearch
-
state and that of citizens of other states. The statute was consequently adjudged to be unconstitutional. Minnesota v. BarberSearch
-
This case was followed in Voight v. WrightSearch
-
of flour from other states, when no such inspection was required of flour manufactured in Virginia. So in Walling v. PeopleSearch
-
control the prohibitions of the federal Constitution nor the powers of the government it created ( New Orleans Gas Co. v. LouisianaSearch
-
jurisdiction, even those engaged in interstate commerce, this Court, speaking by Mr. Justice Matthews, said in Smith v. AlabamaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
liable to be affected by their acts while they were within the territorial jurisdiction of the state. So, in Dent v. WestSearch
-
of Congress to regulate commerce among the states. Page 155 U. S. 473 For, as said by this Court in Sherlock v. AllingSearch
-
state and there sold in original packages without any restriction's being imposed by the state upon such sale is Leisy v. HardinSearch
-
P. 135 U. S. 124 . It is sufficient to say of Leisy v. HardinSearch
-
not a liquid or drink colored artificially so as to cause it to look like beer. The language we have quoted from Leisy v. HardinSearch
-
which is wholly different from what its condition and appearance import. At the term succeeding the decision in Leisy v. HardinSearch
-
and in the light of the decision in Leisy v. HardinSearch
-
The judgment of the court below is supported by many well considered cases. Page 155 U. S. 475 In People v. ArensbergSearch
-
now before us came before the Court of Appeals of New York. That court, after referring to its decision in People v. MarxSearch
-
In McAllister v. StateSearch
-
against fraud and deception, the power of the legislature, the court said, following the previous decision in Pierce v. StateSearch
-
Md. 596, was too plain to be questioned. In Waterbury v. NewtonSearch
-
subject to the laws of New Jersey relating generally to articles of that nature. 50 N.J.L. 535, 537. So in State v. MarshallSearch
-
In State v. AddingtonSearch
-
To the same effect are Powell v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Butler v. ChambersSearch
-
Minn. 69, and Weideman v. StateSearch
-
N.W. 688. In Railroad Co. v. HusenSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Plumley v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Powell v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Railroad Co. v. HusenSearch
-
Minnesota v. BarberSearch
-
Voight v. WrightSearch
-
Walling v. PeopleSearch
-
New Orleans Gas Co. v. LouisianaSearch
-
Smith v. AlabamaSearch
-
Dent v. WestSearch
-
of Leisy v. HardinSearch
-
In People v. ArensbergSearch
-
People v. MarxSearch
-
Pierce v. StateSearch
-
In Waterbury v. NewtonSearch
-
State v. MarshallSearch
-
Powell v. CommonwealthSearch
-
and Weideman v. StateSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial