Citation network
Pullman Co. Vs. Kansas
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 31, 1910
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. 56 (1910) U.S. Supreme Court Pullman Co. v. KansasSearch
-
U.S. 56 (1910) Pullman Co. v. KansasSearch
-
Syllabus The judgment of the court below reversed on the authority of Western Union Telegraph Company v. KansasSearch
-
commerce. This case arises under the statute of Kansas which was examined in Western Union Telegraph Company v. KansasSearch
-
We have seen from the provisions of the statute, as set forth in Western Union Telegraph Company v. KansasSearch
-
For the reasons, and under the limitations, expressed in the opinion delivered in Western Union Telegraph Company v. KansasSearch
-
case, participated in its decision, and approves this opinion. On the authority of Western Union Telegraph Company v. KansasSearch
-
have been constantly the same, it was long ago settled ( Pullman's Page 216 U. S. 64 Palace Car Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
in my opinion, the case is controlled by the reasons given for my concurrence in the Western Union Telegraph Co. v. KansasSearch
-
bring the property into the state and there carry on local business. To so hold without overruling Pullman's Car Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
permanently employed in carrying on business therein. True it is that my concurrence in Western Union Telegraph Co. v. KansasSearch
-
against that commerce or, what is equivalent thereto, discriminates against the right to carry it on. Darnell v. MemphisSearch
-
Am. Steel & Wire Co. v. SpeedSearch
-
in the decided cases, no terser and clearer statement than that expressed in the opinion in Horn Silver Mining Company v. NewSearch
-
Postal Telegraph Co. v. CharlestonSearch
-
Allen v. Pullman'sSearch
-
Security Mut. Ins. Co. v. PrewittSearch
-
National Council v. StateSearch
-
propositions, to directly burden the right to do such business or to discriminate against those doing it. Crutcher v. KentuckySearch
-
the judgment of this Court was announced more than half a century ago in Bank of Augusta Page 216 U. S. 68 v. EarleSearch
-
limits a corporation engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, established by the decision in Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. WesternSearch
-
of the general government -- an obvious exception, first stated, we think, by the late Mr. Justice Bradley in Stockton v. BaltimoreSearch
-
in citing this passage, added, 'without the permission and against the prohibition of the state.' Pembina Mining Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
reference to the cases will be made for Page 216 U. S. 71 the purpose of indicating why this is said. Paul v. VirginiaSearch
-
was not commerce, and therefore was within the absolute regulating power of the states. Horn Silver Mining Company v. NewSearch
-
or extend to excluding a corporation chartered by the United States for governmental purposes. Postal Telegraph Co. v. CharlestonSearch
-
not a condition upon which the right to do business depends, but is a tax, is shown by the case of Home Insurance Co. v. CitySearch
-
proposition that, in deciding questions of constitutional power, it is to be held that two wrongs make a right. Hooper v. CaliforniaSearch
-
the right of a state to absolutely control the doing of insurance business within the state, and the doctrine of Paul v. VirginiaSearch
-
the Constitution of the United States to engage within the state in interstate commerce. In Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. TexasSearch
-
the circumstances of the case, the power Page 216 U. S. 73 of the state was absolute, and not relative. Paul v. VirginiaSearch
-
and cases of that character were cited. Hooper v. CaliforniaSearch
-
had in effect treated as being as well established as the principle of absolute power. It is true that, in Pullman Co. v. AdamsSearch
-
U. S. 420 , and Allen v. Pullman'sSearch
-
to do an interstate commerce business, irrespective of the consent of the state. Security Mutual Insurance Company v. PrewittSearch
-
matter purely of state concern, involving interstate commerce in none of its aspects, and the case of National Council v. StateSearch
-
As this case has received some further discussion beyond that in Western Union Telegraph Company v. KansasSearch
-
of rights to a corporation because it already has property in the state. Argument from Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
U. S. 18 , is excluded by New York Central Railroad v. MillerSearch
-
M'Culloch v. MarylandSearch
-
essentially the doctrine on which the power of the states to tax interstate commerce was denied. 82 U. S. Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Wall. 232. Thus, in Western Union Telegraph Company v. AlabamaSearch
-
the intimations and decisions of earlier cases. The above passage was cited and followed in Postal Telegraph Co. v. CharlestonSearch
-
Weston v. CharlestonSearch
-
Rel. Bank of Commerce v. CommissionersSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial