Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Stafford Vs. Wallace

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 01, 1922

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

75 entries 9 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. Danciger Vs. Cooley US Supreme Court · Jan 07, 1919
  2. United States Vs. Page US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1891
  3. Coe Vs. Errol US Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1886
  4. Brown Vs. Houston US Supreme Court · May 04, 1885
  5. Diamond Match Co. Vs. Ontonagon US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1903
  6. General Oil Co. Vs. Crain US Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1908
  7. United States Vs. Reading US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1855
  8. Pennsylvania R. Co. Vs. Knight US Supreme Court · Jan 04, 1904
    Relied / Followed
  9. United Fuel Gas Co. Vs. Hallanan US Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1921
  10. U.S. 495 (1922) U.S. Supreme Court Stafford v. Wallace
    Search
  11. U.S. 495 (1922) Stafford v. Wallace
    Search
  12. legal conception but a practical one, drawn from the course of business. P. 258 U. S. 518 . Swift & Co. v. United
    Search
  13. conspiracy as a Page 258 U. S. 500 violation of the Anti-Trust Law, and an injunction issued. United States v. Swift
    Search
  14. F. 529. The case was taken on appeal to this Court, which sustained the injunction. Swift v. United
    Search
  15. the act in order to determine its validity to know the conditions under which Congress acted. Chicago Board of Trade v. United
    Search
  16. within the power of regulation by legislative action needs no discussion. That has been settled since the case of Munn v. Illinois
    Search
  17. in their delivery by rail the stockyards are an interstate commerce Page 258 U. S. 517 agency. United States v. Union
    Search
  18. the power of national regulation. A similar question has been before this Court, and had great consideration in Swift v. United
    Search
  19. together Page 258 U. S. 518 as the parts of a single plan. The plan may make the parts unlawful. Aikens v. Wisconsin
    Search
  20. in the construction and application of the commerce clause. It latest expression on the subject is found in Lemke v. Farmers'
    Search
  21. of the commerce clause. Similar confirmation of the principle of the Swift case is to be found in Dahnke v. Bondurant
    Search
  22. U. S. 282 , in Eureka Pipe Line v. Hallanan
    Search
  23. U. S. 265 , and in United Fuel Co. v. Hallanan
    Search
  24. in Western Union Co. v. Foster
    Search
  25. Ohio R. Co. v. Worthington
    Search
  26. relation of the subject to interstate commerce and its effect upon it are clearly nonexistent. In United States v. Ferger
    Search
  27. commerce, or any undue, unjust, or unreasonable discrimination against interstate commerce itself. Railroad Commission v. Chicago
    Search
  28. Houston & Texas Ry. v. United
    Search
  29. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Public
    Search
  30. Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Interstate
    Search
  31. Southern Ry. Co. v. United
    Search
  32. of the Transportation Act of 1920. This was the paragraph and section which were enforced in Railroad Commission v. Chicago
    Search
  33. dealers here are not interstate commerce or within the power of Congress to regulate. The chief of these are Hopkins v. Page
    Search
  34. U. S. 524 United States, 171 U. S. 604 , and Anderson v. United
    Search
  35. So, again, the line is distinct between this case and Hopkins v. United
    Search
  36. the case would have been different if the combination had resulted in exorbitant charges was left open. In Anderson v. United
    Search
  37. and, being formed with a different intent, was not within the act. The present case is more like Montague & Co. v. Lowry
    Search
  38. Thus, take the case of Bacon v. Illinois
    Search
  39. was whether it was immune from taxation because in transit in interstate commerce. Following the cases of Woodruff v. Parham
    Search
  40. Pittsburg & Southern Coal Co. v. Bates
    Search
  41. Kelley v. Rhoads
    Search
  42. U. S. 211 , and American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed
    Search
  43. may not impose because such flow in interstate commerce is an established course of business. United Fuel Gas Co. v. Hallanan
    Search
  44. U. S. 277 . Eureka Page 258 U. S. 527 Pipe Line Co. v. Hallanan
    Search
  45. but a steady flow ending as contemplated from the beginning beyond the state line. Ohio R. Co. Commission v. Worthington
    Search
  46. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Foster
    Search
  47. The case of Blumenstock v. Curtis
    Search
  48. This case is wholly unlike International Text-Book v. Pigg
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Stafford v. Wallace
    Search
  50. Swift & Co. v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial