Citation network
Cudahy Packing Co. Vs. Hinkle
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 18, 1929
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 460 (1929) U.S. Supreme Court Cudahy Packing Co. v. HinkleSearch
-
U.S. 460 (1929) Cudahy Packing Co. v. HinkleSearch
-
of three judges heard the cause, denied a preliminary injunction, and dismissed the bill for want of equity. Looney v. CraneSearch
-
limitation, the Washington enactments are subject to the constitutional objections pointed out in Looney v. CraneSearch
-
Co., and must be denied effect. Baltic Mining Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
imposed upon interstate commerce, and that property beyond the state was not taxed. In Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
demanded is unimportant when there is no legitimate basis for the tax. So far as the language of Baltic Mining Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
the state may be sustained if relatively small. This view did not harmonize with the principles approved by Looney v. CraneSearch
-
Co., and was expressly disapproved by Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. MassSearch
-
legislation fails to require like fees for equal privileges within the doctrine of Air-Way Electric Appliance Corp. v. DaySearch
-
if they were unjustly discriminatory, the fact that they are small in amount would, of course, be immaterial. Sprout v. CitySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the same business would not be required to pay either these taxes or any substitute therefor. General Ry. Signal Co. v. VirginiaSearch
-
was decided by a unanimous Court, and the correctness of the decision has never been questioned. Cheney Bros. Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
prescribed by Massachusetts. The Cheney Bros. Co. case is entirely consistent with Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
and it was laid under a different statute. The situation here is also wholly unlike that considered in Air-Way Corp. v. DaySearch
-
U. S. 71 , 266 U. S. 79 , and in Looney v. CraneSearch
-
to constitute a substantial obstruction of interstate commerce. The case at bar is also unlike International Paper Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
the burden is indirect, even a large burden upon interstate commerce does not render a tax void. See Southern R. Co. v. WattsSearch
-
Hump Hairpin Co. v. EmmersonSearch
-
at all. To hold such a tax void seems to me to ignore the wise rule of decision declared in Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. AdamsSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Cudahy Packing Co. v. HinkleSearch
-
Looney v. CraneSearch
-
In Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
of Baltic Mining Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. MassSearch
-
of Air-Way Electric Appliance Corp. v. DaySearch
-
Sprout v. CitySearch
-
General Ry. Signal Co. v. VirginiaSearch
-
Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Air-Way Corp. v. DaySearch
-
See Southern R. Co. v. WattsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial