Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

icc Vs. Brimson

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 26, 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

43 entries 6 linked 37 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Ferreira US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1851
  2. Anderson Vs. Dunn US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1821
  3. interstate Commerce Commission Vs. Brimson US Supreme Court · May 26, 1894
  4. Stoutenburgh Vs. Hennick US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1889
  5. Fletcher Vs. Peck US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1810
  6. Counselman Vs. Hitchcock US Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1892
  7. U.S. 447 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court ICC v. Brimson
    Search
  8. U.S. 447 (1897) Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson
    Search
  9. Gordon v. United
    Search
  10. or imprisonment. Except in the particular instances enumerated in the Constitution, and considered in Anderson v. Dunn
    Search
  11. Wheat. 204, and in Kilbourn v. Thompson
    Search
  12. intercourse or trade between the United States, among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. Gibbons v. Ogden
    Search
  13. Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  14. Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  15. Robbins v. Shelby
    Search
  16. U. S. 489 , 120 U. S. 494 . The same principle was announced by the present CHIEF JUSTICE in Stoutenburgh v. Hennick
    Search
  17. were possible to suggest any thought not heretofore expressed in the adjudged cases. In the great case of McCulloch v. Maryland
    Search
  18. of the people and to subserve public objects, and therefore subject to governmental control. Cherokee Nation v. Kansas
    Search
  19. Osborn v. Bank
    Search
  20. Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 819 . And in Murray v. Hoboken
    Search
  21. So in Smith v. Adams
    Search
  22. declared unless the incompatibility between the Constitution and the act of Congress is clear and strong. Fletcher v. Peck
    Search
  23. or can be invested with a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson
    Search
  24. Page 154 U. S. 479 103 U. S. 168 , 103 U. S. 190 . We said in Boyd v. United
    Search
  25. to destroy or impair those guaranties. This Court has already spoken fully upon that general subject in Counselman v. Hitchcock
    Search
  26. Page 154 U. S. 480 It may be proper to state in this connection that after the decision in Counselman v. Hitchcock
    Search
  27. our attention was Page 154 U. S. 481 called to Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409, and United States v. Ferreira
    Search
  28. upon the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. Some allusion should be made in this connection to Gordon v. United
    Search
  29. P. 702. See De Groot v. United
    Search
  30. fine or imprisonment. Except in the particular instances enumerated in the Constitution and considered in Anderson v. Dunn
    Search
  31. granted by the Constitution. Page 154 U. S. 488 This view is illustrated by the case of Fong Yue Ting v. United
    Search
  32. U.S. Supreme Court ICC v. Brimson
    Search
  33. Kilbourn v. Thompson
    Search
  34. of McCulloch v. Maryland
    Search
  35. Cherokee Nation v. Kansas
    Search
  36. Murray v. Hoboken
    Search
  37. Smith v. Adams
    Search
  38. Boyd v. United
    Search
  39. and United States v. Ferreira
    Search
  40. See De Groot v. United
    Search
  41. of Fong Yue Ting v. United
    Search
  42. Gibbons v. Ogden
    Search
  43. United States v. Hudson
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial