Citation network
Continental Baking Co. Vs. Woodring
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 23, 1932
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. 352 (1932) U.S. Supreme Court Continental Baking Co. v. WoodringSearch
-
U.S. 352 (1932) Continental Baking Co. v. WoodringSearch
-
of common carriers is not ground for injunction in the absence of any action or threat of action on its part. Smith v. CahoonSearch
-
is likewise based on permissible clarification. Smith v. CahoonSearch
-
purport to put both classes of carriers upon an identical footing and subject them to the same obligations. See Smith v. CahoonSearch
-
Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. DukeSearch
-
Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. RailroadSearch
-
Louis v. BoyntonSearch
-
Kane v. NewSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Sprout v. SouthSearch
-
that the constitutional rights of the appellants have been or will be invaded. This is not a case like that of Smith v. CahoonSearch
-
no right to resort to equity merely because of an anticipation of improper or invalid action in administration. Smith v. CahoonSearch
-
Dalton Adding Machine Co. v. StateSearch
-
Champlin Refining Co. v. CorporationSearch
-
differentiations as to traffic conditions in territory bordering on its various municipalities. Ohio Oil Co. v. ConwaySearch
-
not to be disregarded in the interest of a purely theoretical or scientific uniformity. Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. MillerSearch
-
New York, N.H. & H. R. Co. v. NewSearch
-
Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. ArkansasSearch
-
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. ConleySearch
-
St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. ArkansasSearch
-
Clark v. MaxwellSearch
-
Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
In Smith v. CahoonSearch
-
and created the necessity for the imposition of a tax for maintenance and reconstruction. As the Court said in Alward v. JohnsonSearch
-
Bekins Van Lines v. RileySearch
-
Carley & Hamilton v. SnookSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Continental Baking Co. v. WoodringSearch
-
Smith v. CahoonSearch
-
See Smith v. CahoonSearch
-
of Smith v. CahoonSearch
-
Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. MillerSearch
-
Alward v. JohnsonSearch
-
Bekins Van Lines v. RileySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial