Citation network
Schollenberger Vs. Pennsylvania
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 28, 1898
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
- Relied / Followed
- Distinguished
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 1 (1898) U.S. Supreme Court Schollenberger v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
U.S. 1 (1898) Schollenberger v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
of error. The opinion of the supreme court of the state is to be found reported under the name of Commonwealth v. PaulSearch
-
Page 171 U. S. 11 In People v. MarxSearch
-
imported, but such police power does not include the total exclusion even of an article of food. In Minnesota v. BarberSearch
-
The principle was affirmed in Brimmer v. RebmanSearch
-
U. S. 78 , and in Scott v. DonaldSearch
-
No case has gone to that extent in this Court. The nearest approach to it was the case of Peirce v. NewSearch
-
Hampshire, 5 How. 504, involving the importation of intoxicating liquors. But in Leisy v. HardinSearch
-
To the same effect, we think, is the case of Railroad Company v. HusenSearch
-
however, that the very statute under consideration has heretofore been held valid by this Court in the case of Powell v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
The Powell case was, in the opinion of the Court, governed in its important aspect by that of Mugler v. KansasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
arising under the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States. The last-cited case was followed in Kidd v. PearsonSearch
-
U. S. 1 . Nor is the question determined adversely to this view in the case of Plumley v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Court of Pennsylvania. The question in regard to packing the oleomargarine first arose in the case of Commonwealth v. SchollenbergerSearch
-
some of them made at a very early date, and coming down to the present time. In the leading case of Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
by which commerce is to be governed, and it was held that navigation was included within that power. In Brown v. MarylandSearch
-
and after many other decisions had been made upon the general subject of the commerce clause, this Court, in Bowman v. ChicagoSearch
-
consignee to sell it in unbroken packages at the place where the transportation terminated was not decided. In Brown v. MarylandSearch
-
with it the right and power to prevent its introduction by transportation from another state. The case of Leisy v. HardinSearch
-
Under our decision in Bowman v. ChicagoSearch
-
until a sale in the original package in which the article was introduced into the state. The case of Ement v. MissouriSearch
-
their trade, and such power had been exerted from the earliest times. The remark of Chief Justice Marshall in Brown v. MarylandSearch
-
that this right of sale extended beyond the first sale by the importer after its arrival within the state. Waring v. MayorSearch
-
Penn.Stat. 1885, c. 25. In Powell v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
As was said by this Court in Plumley v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Schollenberger v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
of Commonwealth v. PaulSearch
-
In People v. MarxSearch
-
In Minnesota v. BarberSearch
-
of Peirce v. NewSearch
-
of Railroad Company v. HusenSearch
-
of Powell v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
of Mugler v. KansasSearch
-
of Plumley v. MassachusettsSearch
-
of Commonwealth v. SchollenbergerSearch
-
of Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
In Brown v. MarylandSearch
-
Bowman v. ChicagoSearch
-
of Leisy v. HardinSearch
-
of Ement v. MissouriSearch
-
Brown v. MarylandSearch
-
Waring v. MayorSearch
-
In Powell v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Plumley v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Scott v. DonaldSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial