Citation network
Samuels Vs. Mccurdy
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 02, 1925
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
-
U.S. 188 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Samuels v. McCurdySearch
-
U.S. 188 (1925) Samuels v. McCurdySearch
-
the liquor after the enactment of the law. It is quite the same question as that presented in Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. TranbargerSearch
-
In Crane v. CampbellSearch
-
citing Bartemeyer v. IowaSearch
-
Beer Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Purity Extract Co. v. LynchSearch
-
Clark Distilling Co. v. WesternSearch
-
appear in that case when the liquor seized had been acquired but presumably after the prohibitory act. In Barbour v. GeorgiaSearch
-
it unlawful for one to be possessed of liquor in his residence for use of his family and his guests. In Mugler v. KansasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
come under an obligation, that its legislation upon that subject would remain unchanged. Indeed, as was said in Stone v. MississippiSearch
-
course necessary for the health and morals of the community. It is true that a remark in the opinion in Eberle v. MichiganSearch
-
U. S. 706 , refers to the question as still an open one, and the same reference is made in Barbour v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U. S. 454 , 249 U. S. 459 . In Hamilton v. KentuckySearch
-
U. S. 146 , 251 U. S. 157 , there is a similar reference, though with a suggestive citation to Mugler v. KansasSearch
-
And in Jacob Ruppert v. CaffeySearch
-
passage quoted above from the opinion in the Mugler case and its application to the agreed facts, and in Gardner v. MichiganSearch
-
U. S. 325 , and Reduction Co. v. SanitarySearch
-
Works, 199 U. S. 306 . See also North American Storage Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
U. S. 306 , and Adams v. MilwaukeeSearch
-
United States v. PacificSearch
-
Railroad, 120 U. S. 227 , 120 U. S. 239 . In Gardner v. MichiganSearch
-
respect, the liquors have been taken from him without due process. The Supreme Court of Georgia has held in Delaney v. PlunkettSearch
-
to us, constitutes sufficient process of law under the federal Constitution as respects one in his situation. Lawton v. SteeleSearch
-
his property in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decisions of this Court in Crane v. CampbellSearch
-
U. S. 304 , and Barbour v. GeorgiaSearch
-
can be supported only on the ground that the private possession and use would injure the public. See Mugler v. KansasSearch
-
prevent such private use of intoxicants. Page 267 U. S. 203 It is aimed at the liquor traffic. See Delaney v. PlunkettSearch
-
Ga. 547, Barbour v. StateSearch
-
Ga. 667, Bunger v. StateSearch
-
without foundation. The facts in the case do not permit the application of the doctrine applied in Purity Extract Co. v. LynchSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Samuels v. McCurdySearch
-
Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. TranbargerSearch
-
In Barbour v. GeorgiaSearch
-
In Mugler v. KansasSearch
-
Stone v. MississippiSearch
-
Eberle v. MichiganSearch
-
Barbour v. GeorgiaSearch
-
In Hamilton v. KentuckySearch
-
and Reduction Co. v. SanitarySearch
-
North American Storage Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
and Adams v. MilwaukeeSearch
-
In Gardner v. MichiganSearch
-
Delaney v. PlunkettSearch
-
Crane v. CampbellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial