Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Buck Vs. Kuykendall

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

31 entries 3 linked 28 unlinked
Show
  1. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. Vs. Larabee US Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1914
    Relied / Followed
  2. Packard Vs. Banton US Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1924
  3. Pierce Oil Corp. Vs. Hopkins US Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1924
  4. U.S. 307 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Buck v. Kuykendall
    Search
  5. U.S. 307 (1925) Buck v. Kuykendall
    Search
  6. the section as applying to common carriers engaged exclusively in interstate commerce. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Schoenfeldt
    Search
  7. Schmidt v. Department
    Search
  8. its laws. Having complied with the laws of Washington relating to motor vehicles, their owners and drivers ( Carlsen v. Cooney
    Search
  9. bill. The final decree dismissing the bill was entered without further opinion. See also Interstate Motor Transit Co. v. Kuykendall
    Search
  10. the state, in its discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal protection clause. Packard v. Banton
    Search
  11. It may make provision appropriate for securing the safety and convenience of the public in the use of them. Kane v. New
    Search
  12. of supervision and maintenance and to obtaining compensation for the use of the road facilities provided. Hendrick v. Maryland
    Search
  13. U. S. 610 . See also Pierce Oil Corp. v. Hopkins
    Search
  14. commerce, in the absence of legislation by Congress which deals specifically with the subject. Vandalia R. Co. v. Public
    Search
  15. the indirect burden imposed upon interstate commerce is not unreasonable. Compare Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. Duke
    Search
  16. argument is unsound. It is true that one cannot in the same proceeding both assail a statute and rely upon it. Hurley v. Commissioner
    Search
  17. Wall v. Parrot
    Search
  18. who avails himself of the benefits conferred by a statute deny its validity. Page 267 U. S. 317 St. Louis Co. v. Prendergast
    Search
  19. to common carriers. But the permission sought was denied. The case presents no element of estoppel. Compare Arizona v. Copper
    Search
  20. U.S. Supreme Court Buck v. Kuykendall
    Search
  21. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Schoenfeldt
    Search
  22. Carlsen v. Cooney
    Search
  23. Interstate Motor Transit Co. v. Kuykendall
    Search
  24. Kane v. New
    Search
  25. Hendrick v. Maryland
    Search
  26. Vandalia R. Co. v. Public
    Search
  27. Compare Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. Duke
    Search
  28. Hurley v. Commissioner
    Search
  29. Wall v. Parrot
    Search
  30. St. Louis Co. v. Prendergast
    Search
  31. Compare Arizona v. Copper
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial