Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Singer Sewing Machine Co. Vs. Brickell

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 06, 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

40 entries 4 linked 36 unlinked
Show
  1. Crutcher Vs. Kentucky US Supreme Court · May 25, 1891
  2. Western Union Telegraph Co. Vs. Kansas US Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1910
  3. Armour Packing Co. Vs. Lacy US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1906
  4. Southwestern Oil Co. Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Apr 04, 1910
  5. U.S. 304 (1914) U.S. Supreme Court Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Brickell
    Search
  6. U.S. 304 (1914) Singer Sewing Machine Company v. Brickell
    Search
  7. filled from stock in that state, the business is interstate commerce and not subject to a state license tax. Crenshaw v. Arkansas
    Search
  8. decree of the district court is not now directly under review, but, at any rate, it was clearly correct under Crenshaw v. Arkansas
    Search
  9. the correctness of the decision, so far as the commerce clause is concerned, seems to us equally clear under Ement v. Missouri
    Search
  10. if applied in Russell County, it would burden interstate commerce are readily distinguishable. In United States v. Reese
    Search
  11. all commerce by confining it to the interstate commerce that alone was subject to the control of Congress. In Leloup v. Port
    Search
  12. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  13. Ry. Co. v. Texas
    Search
  14. U. S. 1 , 216 U. S. 27 . In Williams v. Talladega
    Search
  15. engaged in other occupations more or less like it ought to be similarly taxed. This is not such a case. Connolly v. Union
    Search
  16. Cook v. Marshall
    Search
  17. U. S. 114 , 217 U. S. 121 . In Quartlebaum v. State
    Search
  18. Ballou v. State
    Search
  19. Page 233 U. S. 317 The cases cited from the state courts lend no support to appellant's argument. Mobile v. Craft
    Search
  20. Tuscaloosa v. Holczstein
    Search
  21. Ala. 636, and Gambill v. Endrich
    Search
  22. of the respective municipalities thereunder, and have no direct bearing upon the present question. In Montgomery v. Kelly
    Search
  23. and therefore unconstitutional. Mefford v. Sheffield
    Search
  24. Alabama Consolidated Coal Co. v. Herzberg
    Search
  25. and the foregoing section is repugnant to the state and federal constitutions under the authority of Montgomery v. Kelly
    Search
  26. U.S. Supreme Court Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Brickell
    Search
  27. Singer Sewing Machine Company v. Brickell
    Search
  28. Crenshaw v. Arkansas
    Search
  29. Ement v. Missouri
    Search
  30. In United States v. Reese
    Search
  31. of Congress. In Leloup v. Port
    Search
  32. In Williams v. Talladega
    Search
  33. Connolly v. Union
    Search
  34. In Quartlebaum v. State
    Search
  35. Ballou v. State
    Search
  36. Mobile v. Craft
    Search
  37. and Gambill v. Endrich
    Search
  38. In Montgomery v. Kelly
    Search
  39. Mefford v. Sheffield
    Search
  40. of Montgomery v. Kelly
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial