Citation network
Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. Vs. Prewitt
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 14, 1906
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
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 246 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. PrewittSearch
-
U.S. 246 (1906) Security Mutual Life Insurance Company v. PrewittSearch
-
such a case, its license to do business within the state shall thereupon be revoked, is not unconstitutional. Doyle v. ContinentalSearch
-
Insurance Co., 94 U. S. 535 , followed and held not to be overruled by Barron v. BurnsideSearch
-
as to violate some provision of the federal Constitution. Among the later authorities on that proposition are Hooper v. CaliforniaSearch
-
New York Life Insurance Company v. CravensSearch
-
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company v. WarrenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
above set forth. The question is, in our opinion, settled by the decisions of this Court. In Insurance Company v. MorseSearch
-
would not remove a case to a federal court, and the statute was held to be void. Subsequently, the case of Doyle v. ContinentalSearch
-
keep Page 202 U. S. 252 offices, and issue policies in that state. On the contrary, the case of Paul v. VirginiaSearch
-
Wall. 168, where it is held that such conditions may be imposed, was cited with approval in Home Insurance Company v. MorseSearch
-
was a distinction between the two propositions, and one might be held void and the other not. The case of Barron v. BurnsideSearch
-
this, and all that is said in the opinion which appears to be in conflict with the adjudication in Insurance Company v. MorseSearch
-
two cases. The Doyle opinion proceeds upon that theory. If it had been the intention of the court in Barron v. BurnsideSearch
-
Such statute exacts no agreement or stipulation in any form or in any part of the statute. In Southern Pacific Co. v. DentonSearch
-
as the Iowa statute, which was held void on account of the exaction of the agreement. In Barrow Steamship Co. v. KaneSearch
-
the opinion of the Court, again stated what was regarded as the holding in the two cases of Home Insurance Co. v. MorseSearch
-
and Barron v. BurnsideSearch
-
It was the exaction of a stipulation or agreement that rendered the statute illegal. It is also said in Blake v. McClungSearch
-
of the act of Congress enacted to effect that purpose. This principle was announced in terms in Home Insurance Co. v. MorseSearch
-
to do business in the state. The question came directly before this Court in the case of Home Insurance Company v. MorseSearch
-
of another state by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The question arose again in the case of Doyle v. ContinentalSearch
-
her action were not the subjects of judicial inquiry. Thus the decisions of this Court stood until the case of Barron v. BurnsideSearch
-
court which it had the right under the laws of the United States to remove was void. And the case of Insurance Co. v. MorseSearch
-
supra, was approved, and Doyle v. ContinentalSearch
-
the unanimous opinion of the Court. It is apparent from its perusal that the principle stated in Insurance Co. v. MorseSearch
-
beyond this and all that is said in the opinion which appears to be in conflict with the adjudication in Insurance Co. v. MorseSearch
-
be imposed by the state which are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. Lafayette Ins. Co. v. FrenchSearch
-
Insurance Co. v. MorseSearch
-
Phila. Fire Assn. v. NewSearch
-
that the right to remove given to a foreign citizen or corporation was a right thus secured. The doctrine of Barron v. BurnsideSearch
-
law of the land in some of its most essential provisions. An examination of the decisions subsequent to Barron v. PageSearch
-
has been cited and followed in subsequent cases in this and other federal courts. In Southern Pacific Co. v. DentonSearch
-
citing Insurance Company v. MorseSearch
-
The same eminent judge, delivering again the unanimous judgment of this Court in Martin v. BaltimoreSearch
-
of the same cases, including the Denton case, this Court, by its unanimous judgment in Barrow Steamship Co. v. KaneSearch
-
To the same effect was the case of Blake v. McClungSearch
-
It was accordingly adjudged in Barron v. BurnsideSearch
-
them in the courts of the state have been adjudged to be unconstitutional and void. In Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co. v. EvansSearch
-
In Bigelow v. NickersonSearch
-
Page 202 U. S. 265 In Reimers v. SeatcoSearch
-
of a state to impose conditions upon foreign corporations doing business therein is not unlimited. In Insurance Co. v. FrenchSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial