Citation network
Long Vs. Rockwood
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 14, 1928
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
-
U.S. 142 (1928) U.S. Supreme Court Long v. RockwoodSearch
-
U.S. 142 (1928) Long v. RockwoodSearch
-
Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the Court in Grant v. RaymondSearch
-
Bauer v. O'DonnellSearch
-
inventor. And the settled doctrine is that such instrumentalities may not be taxed by the states. In California v. PacificSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
The same general doctrine was approved by McCullouch v. MarylandSearch
-
Home Savings Bank v. DesSearch
-
Bank v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Choctaw & Gulf R. Co. v. HarrisonSearch
-
Oil Co. v. OklahomaSearch
-
Smith v. KansasSearch
-
Clallam County v. UnitedSearch
-
Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. WisconsinSearch
-
in Pennsylvania and New York have held that a state may not tax patents granted by the United States. Commonwealth v. WestinghouseSearch
-
People, etc. v. AssessorsSearch
-
by patentees, to regulate the assignment of patent rights, and to prevent fraud in connection therewith. Patterson v. KentuckySearch
-
John Woods & Sons Co. v. CarlSearch
-
Ozan Lumber Co. v. UnionSearch
-
The postulate is founded on the casual intimation of Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
their private advantage alone. If the government uses them, it must pay like other people. Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
but simply to keep other people from doing so in aid of some collateral interest of his own. Continental Paper Bag Co. v. EasternSearch
-
the benefits to the public when the patent has expired, and, secondarily, the encouragement of invention. Pennock v. DialogueSearch
-
the limits allowed by the law. Rights that even seem absolute have these qualifications. American Bank & Trust Co. v. FederalSearch
-
do not on that account resort to the blunt expedient of taking away altogether the power or the right. Board of Trade v. ChristieSearch
-
regard to patents, some laws of a kind that might destroy the use of them within the state have been upheld. Patterson v. KentuckySearch
-
Ement v. MissouriSearch
-
They must be reasonable, or they will be held void, but, if this Court deems them reasonable, they stand. Allen v. RileySearch
-
for exemption, standing by itself, than is the derivation of the title to a lot of land from the same source. Tucker v. FergusonSearch
-
Wall. 527. In Baltimore Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. BaltimoreSearch
-
of the United States, and that there was nothing to hinder the right of the state to tax. See further Forbes v. GraceySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Long v. RockwoodSearch
-
In California v. PacificSearch
-
McCullouch v. MarylandSearch
-
Bank v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Oil Co. v. OklahomaSearch
-
the United States. Commonwealth v. WestinghouseSearch
-
Patterson v. KentuckySearch
-
McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Continental Paper Bag Co. v. EasternSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial