Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Hammer Vs. Dagenhart

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 03, 1918

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

66 entries 10 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. Bacon Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1913
  2. Kidd Vs. Pearson US Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1888
  3. Buttfield Vs. Stranahan US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1904
  4. Veazie Bank Vs. Fenno US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1869
  5. Coe Vs. Errol US Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1886
  6. United States Vs. Dewitt US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1869
  7. Lane County Vs. Oregon US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1868
  8. New York Vs. Miln US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1837
  9. Weber Vs. Freed US Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1915
  10. Leisy Vs. Hardin US Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1890
  11. U.S. 251 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Hammer v. Dagenhart
    Search
  12. U.S. 251 (1918) Hammer v. Dagenhart
    Search
  13. which authorizes Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the States. In Gibbons v. Ogden
    Search
  14. to prohibit is as to them but the exertion of the power to regulate. The first of these cases is Champion v. Ames
    Search
  15. commerce free from use in the transportation of tickets used in the promotion of lottery schemes. In Hipolite Egg Co. v. United
    Search
  16. which prohibited the introduction into the States by means of interstate commerce of impure foods and drugs. In Hoke v. United
    Search
  17. Page 247 U. S. 271 In Caminetti v. United
    Search
  18. of women in interstate commerce for the purposes of debauchery and kindred purposes. In Clark Distilling Co. v. Western
    Search
  19. shipped or used in interstate commerce make their production a part thereof. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R.R. Co. v. Yurkonis
    Search
  20. Justice Jackson in In re Green, 52 Fed.Rep. 113.) This principle has been recognized often in this court. Coe v. Errol
    Search
  21. framers of the Constitution when they vested in Congress the authority to regulate commerce among the States. Kidd v. Pearson
    Search
  22. said this court in United States v. Dewitt
    Search
  23. See Keller v. United
    Search
  24. And in Dartmouth College v. Woodward
    Search
  25. declared Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland
    Search
  26. A statute must be judged by its natural and reasonable effect. Collins v. New
    Search
  27. to them and to the people the powers not expressly delegated to the National Government are reserved. Lane County v. Oregon
    Search
  28. authority is inherent, and has never been surrendered to the general government. Page 247 U. S. 276 New York v. Miln
    Search
  29. not beyond the regulative power of Congress merely because it prohibits certain transportation out and out. Champion v. Ames
    Search
  30. any inquiry into the purpose of an act which, apart from that purpose, was within the power of Congress. McCray v. United
    Search
  31. States, 195 U. S. 27 . As to foreign commerce see Weber v. Freed
    Search
  32. Brolan v. United
    Search
  33. to Congress, but the tax was sustained, and the objection, so far as noticed, was disposed of by citing McCray v. United
    Search
  34. States. Flint v. Stone
    Search
  35. of the States over production was interfered with was urged again and again, but always in vain. Standard Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  36. States, 221 U. S. 1 , 221 U. S. 68 , 221 U. S. 69 . United States v. American
    Search
  37. Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 1 06, 221 U. S. 184 . Hoke v. United
    Search
  38. U. S. 321 , 227 U. S. 322 . See finally and especially Seven Cases of Eckman's Alterative v. United
    Search
  39. U. S. 514 , 239 U. S. 515 . The Pure Food and Drug Act which was sustained in Hipolite Egg Co. v. United
    Search
  40. others innocent in themselves, simply on the ground that the order for them was induced by a preliminary fraud. Weeks v. United
    Search
  41. adopted by Congress as convenient to the exercise of its power might have the character of police regulations. Hoke v. United
    Search
  42. States, 227 U. S. 308 , 227 U. S. 323 . Caminetti v. United
    Search
  43. States, 242 U. S. 470 , 242 U. S. 492 . In Clark Distilling Co. v. Western
    Search
  44. Maryland R. Co., 242 U. S. 311 , 242 U. S. 328 , Leisy v. Hardin
    Search
  45. generally prevails, I cannot believe that the fact would require a different decision from that reached in Champion v. Ames
    Search
  46. U.S. Supreme Court Hammer v. Dagenhart
    Search
  47. the States. In Gibbons v. Ogden
    Search
  48. Champion v. Ames
    Search
  49. In Hipolite Egg Co. v. United
    Search
  50. In Hoke v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial