Citation network
The Tap Line Cases
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 25, 1914
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
-
the transportation of lumber from the operation of the commodities clause, and had power so to do. United States v. DelSearch
-
Commerce Court had jurisdiction in the case. It is further insisted, upon the authority of Proctor & Gamble Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
In General Electric Co. v. N.YSearch
-
Solvay Process Co. v. DelawareSearch
-
Kaul Lumber Co. v. CentralSearch
-
it has been so held, in view of the fact that the same principle was laid down in the late case of Union Lime Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
of public service and are subject to the regulation of public authority. As was said by this Court in Hairston v. DanvilleSearch
-
by a common carrier as a part of its system and under its public obligation and merely private sidings. See De Camp v. HiberniaSearch
-
R. Co. v. PorterSearch
-
Ulmer v. LimeSearch
-
Railway Company v. PettySearch
-
Dietrich v. MurdockSearch
-
Bedford Quarries Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
Central Yellow Pine Association v. VicksburgSearch
-
systems of other carriers -- a circumstance to be noticed in determining their true character. United States v. UnionSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
engaged in transportation as that term is defined in the Commerce Act and described in decisions of this Court. Coe v. ErrolSearch
-
Covington Stock Yds. Co. v. KeithSearch
-
Southern Pac. Term. Co. v. InterstateSearch
-
United States v. UnionSearch
-
it owned them itself. And that Congress had the constitutional power to enact such exemption was held in United States v. DelawareSearch
-
No. 829, United States and Interstate Commerce Commission v. LouisianaSearch
-
No. 830, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. LouisianaSearch
-
No. 831, United States and Interstate Commerce Commission v. WoodworthSearch
-
No. 832, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. WoodworthSearch
-
United States and Interstate Commerce Commission v. MansfieldSearch
-
No. 834, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. MansfieldSearch
-
No. 835, United States and Interstate Commerce Commission v. VictoriaSearch
-
No. 836, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. VictoriaSearch
-
United States v. DelSearch
-
of Proctor & Gamble Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
In General Electric Co. v. N.YSearch
-
Solvay Process Co. v. DelawareSearch
-
Kaul Lumber Co. v. CentralSearch
-
of Union Lime Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
Hairston v. DanvilleSearch
-
See De Camp v. HiberniaSearch
-
Central Yellow Pine Association v. VicksburgSearch
-
Court. Coe v. ErrolSearch
-
United States v. DelawareSearch
-
United States and Interstate Commerce Commission v. LouisianaSearch
-
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. LouisianaSearch
-
United States and Interstate Commerce Commission v. WoodworthSearch
-
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. WoodworthSearch
-
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. MansfieldSearch
-
United States and Interstate Commerce Commission v. VictoriaSearch
-
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. VictoriaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial