Citation network
Lacoste Vs. Department of Conservation
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 07, 1924
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
-
Lacoste v. DepartmentSearch
-
of Conservation - 263 U.S. 545 (1924) U.S. Supreme Court Lacoste v. DepartmentSearch
-
of Conservation, 263 U.S. 545 (1924) Lacoste v. DepartmentSearch
-
by the state while in the hands of dealers and before they move in interstate commerce. P. 263 U. S. 551 . Coe v. ErrolSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the state may regulate and control the taking, subsequent use and property rights that may be acquired therein. Geer v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Ward v. RaceSearch
-
Silz v. HesterbergSearch
-
Carey v. SouthSearch
-
State v. RodmanSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. WestSearch
-
Kansas City Railway v. KansasSearch
-
Elmer v. WallaceSearch
-
State v. FerrandouSearch
-
effect of which is to prevent, obstruct, or burden interstate commerce. Pennsylvania Page 263 U. S. 550 v. WestSearch
-
state will not necessarily control. Regard must be had to the substance of the measure, rather than its form. Looney v. CraneSearch
-
St. Louis Southwestern Railway v. ArkansasSearch
-
U.S. Express Co. v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. TexasSearch
-
commerce. Such skins and hides may be taxed while in the hands of dealers before they move in interstate commerce. Coe v. ErrolSearch
-
even if no similar or corresponding tax is levied upon other property of merchants. St. Louis Southwestern Railway v. ArkansasSearch
-
Cook v. MarshallSearch
-
to possession on prescribed conditions may reasonably be distinguished from other classes of property. Compare Geer v. ConnecticutSearch
-
U. S. 208 . The Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with the proper exercise of the police power. Barbier v. ConnollySearch
-
Reinman v. LittleSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Lacoste v. DepartmentSearch
-
Looney v. CraneSearch
-
Compare Geer v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Ohio Oil Co. v. IndianaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial