Citation network
General Oil Co. Vs. Crain
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 23, 1908
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. 211 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court General Oil Co. v. CrainSearch
-
U.S. 211 (1908) General Oil Company v. CrainSearch
-
Norton v. ShelbySearch
-
Freeport Water Co. v. FreeportSearch
-
Chambers v. BaltimoreSearch
-
Ohio R. Co., 207 U. S. 142 . A review of these cases becomes necessary. In Semple v. HagarSearch
-
was rightly decided. That was seemingly considered out of the power of this Court to inquire into. Norton v. ShelbySearch
-
U. S. 400 , 111 U. S. 410 , was cited. Smith v. AdsitSearch
-
In Callan v. BransfordSearch
-
In Freeport Water Co. v. FreeportSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
In Newman v. GatesSearch
-
In Chambers v. BaltimoreSearch
-
cases cited by plaintiff in error to sustain the jurisdiction of this Court cases in the federal courts. Poindexter v. GreenhowSearch
-
U. S. 270 , and Chaffin v. TaylorSearch
-
Page 209 U. S. 225 of Virginia, and they involve questions very much like those in the case at bar. Poindexter v. GreenhowSearch
-
representing and acting for the latter is not an agent of the former. That and other cases were reviewed in Belknap v. SchildSearch
-
reviewed. The principles of the cases which we have cited were applied by the Supreme Court of Tennessee in Lynn v. PolkSearch
-
protection of the Constitution of the United States. A similar distinction was attempted to be made in Poindexter v. GreenhowSearch
-
And inquiries of fact may be necessary to exhibit the unconstitutionality of a statute, as in Reagan v. Farmers'Search
-
Loan & Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362 , and Smyth v. AmesSearch
-
which constitutes interstate commerce are easy to mark. The first is defined Page 209 U. S. 229 in Coe v. ErrolSearch
-
to the state of its destination, or started on its ultimate passage. The latter is defined to be, in Brown v. HoustonSearch
-
point of time at which it arrives at its destination. But intermediate between these points questions may arise. State v. EngleSearch
-
State v. CarriganSearch
-
The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557. In Pittsburg Coal Company v. BatesSearch
-
ceased to be interstate commerce, and was subject to taxation by the State of Louisiana. In Diamond Match Company v. OntonagonSearch
-
In Kelley v. RhoadsSearch
-
commerce. Necessarily, however, the length and purpose of the interruption of transit must be considered. In State v. EngleSearch
-
See also, in State v. CarriganSearch
-
was held to be in course of transportation, and not subject to the taxing power of the state. In Burlington Lumber Co. v. WillettsSearch
-
there not in necessary delay or accommodation to the means of transportation, as Page 209 U. S. 231 in State v. EngleSearch
-
mere transportation of the oil. The case therefore comes under the principle announced in American Steel & Wire Co. v. SpeedSearch
-
of taxation. It may be that such power is more limited than the power to enact inspection laws. Patapsco Guano Co. v. BoardSearch
-
is a formal party and is successful in the inferior court, is not a suit within the meaning of the Amendment. Cohen v. VirginiaSearch
-
inspection law, which it purports to be. Perhaps it could not be under the doctrine announced and applied in Minnesota v. BarberSearch
-
U. S. 313 , and Brimmer v. RebmanSearch
-
think that the statute, as enforced in the case at bar, is bad as a taxing law. The case of American Steel & Wire Co. v. SpeedSearch
-
that transportation, and was therefore protected from state taxation by the commerce clause of the Constitution. Coe v. ErrolSearch
-
Kelley v. RhoadsSearch
-
as essential by the court, which are absent here. The property had either not begun its interstate journey, as in Coe v. ErrolSearch
-
ubi supra, and Diamond Match Company v. OntonagonSearch
-
or it had ended that journey, and was held for sale in common with other property in the state, as in Brown v. HoustonSearch
-
Pittsburg Coal Company v. BatesSearch
-
U. S. 577 , and American Steel & Wire Co. v. SpeedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court General Oil Co. v. CrainSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial