Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

AustIn Vs. Tennessee

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 19, 1900

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

84 entries 11 linked 73 unlinked
Show
  1. Brimmer Vs. Rebman US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1891
    Relied / Followed
  2. Guy Vs. Baltimore US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1879
  3. Ward Vs. Maryland US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1870
  4. Allgeyer Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1897
  5. Mugler Vs. Kansas US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1887
  6. Holden Vs. Hardy US Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1898
  7. Barbier Vs. Connolly US Supreme Court · Jan 05, 1885
  8. Soon Hing Vs. Crowley US Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1885
  9. Yick Wo Vs. Hopkins US Supreme Court · May 10, 1886
    Relied / Followed
  10. Woodruff Vs. Parham US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1868
  11. Leisy Vs. Hardin US Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1890
    Relied / Followed
  12. U.S. 343 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Austin v. Tennessee
    Search
  13. U.S. 343 (1900) Austin v. Tennessee
    Search
  14. the introduction of products, and more particularly of food products, universally recognized as harmless, Minnesota v. Barber
    Search
  15. Welton v. Missouri
    Search
  16. Henderson v. New
    Search
  17. Railroad Co. v. Husen
    Search
  18. New York v. Compagnie
    Search
  19. Transatlantique, 107 U. S. 59 . In this connection, we indorse fully what was said by this Court in Mugler v. Kansas
    Search
  20. ruling with regard to the power of the states to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors was made in Bartemyer v. Iowa
    Search
  21. which, by the Fourteenth Amendment, the states were forbidden to abridge. And in the later case of Boston Beer Co. v. Massachusetts
    Search
  22. might so provide notwithstanding individuals and corporations might thereby suffer inconvenience. In Mugler v. Kansas
    Search
  23. U. S. 623 , and Kidd v. Pearson
    Search
  24. without compensating them for the diminution in value resulting from such prohibitory enactments, and in Foster v. Kansas
    Search
  25. never been decided by this Court. Nor is it necessary to the decision of this case. It was held, however, in Powell v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  26. So, too, in Plumley v. Massachusetts
    Search
  27. would be respected though it might interfere indirectly with interstate commerce. While, as was said in Holden v. Hardy
    Search
  28. Thus, while in Railroad Co. v. Husen
    Search
  29. altogether, or subjected to such regulations as the legislature chose to impose. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway v. Haber
    Search
  30. U. S. 613 . So too, although it was held in Barbier v. Connolly
    Search
  31. U. S. 27 , and in Soon Hing v. Crowley
    Search
  32. applying, or the propriety of Page 179 U. S. 350 the place selected for carrying on business. Yick Wo v. Hopkins
    Search
  33. in the case. The whole law upon the subject of original packages is based upon a decision of this Court in Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  34. was subsequently considered in Woodruff v. Parham
    Search
  35. were sold in the original and unbroken packages. The principle of this case was subsequently applied in Brown v. Houston
    Search
  36. The principle of this case was applied subsequently in that of Pittsburgh & Southern Coal Co. v. Bates
    Search
  37. U. S. 577 . In Leisy v. Hardin
    Search
  38. and ordinarily imported from one state to another in casks of this size. In the still later case of Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  39. Most pertinent to this case, and, as we think, covering its principle completely, is the opinion of this Court in May v. New
    Search
  40. box or case containing these packages or the packages themselves were the original packages within the case of Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  41. courts of several states, and their decisions have been with almost equal unanimity the other way. In Commonwealth v. Zelt
    Search
  42. regarded defendant's method as a trick and an evasion of the state statute. The judgment was affirmed. In Commonwealth v. Schollenberger
    Search
  43. In the case of Commonwealth v. Bishman
    Search
  44. In Commonwealth v. Paul
    Search
  45. In Haley v. Nebraska
    Search
  46. Neb. 556, the same result was reached upon precisely the same state of facts, as well as in State v. Chapman
    Search
  47. S.D. 414, and Smith v. State
    Search
  48. Ark. 248. In McGregor v. Cone
    Search
  49. the small packages sold by defendant to be original packages. This case seems to have overruled the cases of State v. Coonan
    Search
  50. Collins v. Hills
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial