Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Lambert Vs. Yellowley

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 29, 1926

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

42 entries 9 linked 33 unlinked
Show
  1. Collins Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1912
  2. Crane Vs. Johnson US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1917
  3. Graves Vs. Minnesota US Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1926
  4. Jacob Ruppert Vs. Caffey US Supreme Court · Jan 06, 1920
  5. Price Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1915
  6. Mcculloch Vs. Maryland US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1819
  7. Hammer Vs. Dagenhart US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1918
  8. Hixon Vs. Oakes US Supreme Court · May 26, 1924
    Distinguished
  9. Everard's Breweries Vs. Day US Supreme Court · Jun 09, 1924
    Distinguished
  10. U.S. 581 (1926) U.S. Supreme Court Lambert v. Yellowley
    Search
  11. U.S. 581 (1926) Lambert v. Yellowley
    Search
  12. reversed the decree and directed that the bill be dismissed. 4 F.2d 915. In the interval, this Court had decided Hixon v. Oakes
    Search
  13. U. S. 254 , and Everard's Breweries v. Day
    Search
  14. In Everard's Breweries v. Day
    Search
  15. The difficulties always attendant upon the suppression of traffic in intoxicating liquors are notorious. Crane v. Campbell
    Search
  16. in enforcing prohibition, is confronted with difficulties similar to those encountered by the states. Ruppert v. Caffey
    Search
  17. enforcing the prohibition ordained by the Eighteenth Amendment. A later case applying like principles is Selzman v. United
    Search
  18. Besides, there is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the police power of the states, Dent v. West
    Search
  19. may be attended by some or all of the incidents which attend the exercise by a state of its police power. Hamilton v. Kentucky
    Search
  20. the temptation to resort to prescriptions as pretexts for obtaining liquor for beverage uses. Compare Jacobson v. Massachusetts
    Search
  21. was in effect. In seven states, no intoxicating liquor of any kind could be prescribed. Ariz.Const. art. 23, Cooper v. State
    Search
  22. State v. Miller
    Search
  23. People v. Urcavitch
    Search
  24. Linder v. United
    Search
  25. implicit in the act, that vinous and spirituous liquors are of medicinal value, must be accepted here. Radice v. New
    Search
  26. Rast v. Van
    Search
  27. U. S. 446 , 238 U. S. 452 . The majority opinion rests chiefly upon Everard's Breweries v. Day
    Search
  28. the Eighteenth Amendment, of prohibiting prescriptions of intoxicating malt liquors for medicinal purposes. See Radice v. New
    Search
  29. the medical practice is outside the province of the federal government and wholly within that of the states ( Linder v. United
    Search
  30. Amendment has not destroyed, of controlling medical practice and transfer it in part of Congress. See Hammer v. Dagenhart
    Search
  31. U.S. Supreme Court Lambert v. Yellowley
    Search
  32. and Everard's Breweries v. Day
    Search
  33. Crane v. Campbell
    Search
  34. Ruppert v. Caffey
    Search
  35. Selzman v. United
    Search
  36. Dent v. West
    Search
  37. Hamilton v. Kentucky
    Search
  38. Compare Jacobson v. Massachusetts
    Search
  39. Cooper v. State
    Search
  40. Radice v. New
    Search
  41. See Radice v. New
    Search
  42. of Congress. See Hammer v. Dagenhart
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial