Citation network
Hamilton Vs. Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 16, 1919
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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
Hamilton v. KentuckySearch
-
Distilleries & Warehouse Co. - 251 U.S. 146 (1919) U.S. Supreme Court Hamilton v. KentuckySearch
-
Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U.S. 146 (1919) Hamilton v. KentuckySearch
-
and the navy and of the workers engaged in supplying them with arms, munitions, transportation and supplies. McKinley v. UnitedSearch
-
But the exercise of the war powers is (except in respect to property destroyed by military operations, United States v. PacificSearch
-
Railroad, 120 U. S. 227 , 120 U. S. 239 ) subject to the Fifth Amendment. United States v. RussellSearch
-
McCray v. UnitedSearch
-
Hipolite Egg Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Hoke v. UnitedSearch
-
Seven Cases v. UnitedSearch
-
Monongahela Navigation Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. JointSearch
-
Carroll v. GreenwichSearch
-
of the prohibitory law which were held to be permissible in cases arising under the Fourteenth Amendment. Mugler v. KansasSearch
-
the prohibitory law has been raised by this Court, but not answered, because unnecessary to a decision. Bartemeyer v. IowaSearch
-
Beer Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U. S. 454 , 249 U. S. 459 . See, however, Mugler v. KansasSearch
-
of the property itself, cannot be regarded as a taking of property in the constitutional sense. Clark Distilling Co. v. WesternSearch
-
state of war, terminable only with the ratification of a treaty of peace or a proclamation of peace ( United States v. AndersonSearch
-
Hijo v. UnitedSearch
-
but upon some actual emergency or necessity arising out of the war or incident to it, still, as was said in Stewart v. KahnSearch
-
this Court may not, in passing upon the validity of a statute, inquire into the motives of Congress. United States v. DesSearch
-
Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. SouthSearch
-
U. S. 163 , 250 U. S. 184 . Nor may the court inquire into the wisdom of the legislation. McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
Brushaber v. UnionSearch
-
Rast v. VanSearch
-
Lincoln Gas Co. v. LincolnSearch
-
U. S. 268 . That the doctrine is applicable to acts of Congress was conceded arguendo in Perring v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 232 U. S. 478 , 232 U. S. 486 , and Johnson v. GearldsSearch
-
not confined to a designated period reasonable in duration, but apparently was intended to be perpetual. In Johnson v. GearldsSearch
-
that the then existing restriction imposed by the War-Time Prohibition Act was removed. See Narragansett Brewing Co. v. BakerSearch
-
period of war has been held to extend to the ratification of the treaty of peace or the proclamation of peace. Hijo v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. AndersonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Hamilton v. KentuckySearch
-
McKinley v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. PacificSearch
-
the Fifth Amendment. United States v. RussellSearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment. Mugler v. KansasSearch
-
Clark Distilling Co. v. WesternSearch
-
Stewart v. KahnSearch
-
of Congress. United States v. DesSearch
-
McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
Perring v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial