Citation network
New State Ice Co. Vs. Liebmann
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 21, 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. 262 (1932) U.S. Supreme Court New State Ice Co. v. LiebmannSearch
-
U.S. 262 (1932) New State Ice Co. v. LiebmannSearch
-
one who seeks to carry on the same business without obtaining from the commission a license or permit to do so. Frost v. CorporationSearch
-
but some of the acts, either in precise terms or in their application, were extended to other kinds of mills. Head v. AmoskeagSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
State v. EdwardsSearch
-
were usually operated by the use of water power, but this method of operation has been said not to be essential. State v. EdwardsSearch
-
imposing limitations upon their operation for the protection of the public. Id. In Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. v. CottonSearch
-
is not without helpful significance. Page 285 U. S. 275 In that connection, we also may consider Clark v. NashSearch
-
U. S. 361 , and Strickley v. HighlandSearch
-
Tyson & Bro. v. BantonSearch
-
Wolff Co. v. IndustrialSearch
-
of renting houses and apartments, except as to temporary measures to tide over grave emergencies. See Tyson & Bro. v. BantonSearch
-
Burns Baking Co. v. BryanSearch
-
Liggett Co. v. BaldridgeSearch
-
to dispense in the interest of experiments. This principle has been applied by this Court in many cases. Dorchy v. KansasSearch
-
Wolff Packing Co. v. IndustrialSearch
-
Pierce v. SistersSearch
-
Washington v. RobergeSearch
-
Chicago, St. P. M. & O. Ry. Co. v. HolmbergSearch
-
competition with the plaintiff. To enjoin him from doing so, this suit was brought by the ice company. Compare Frost v. CorporationSearch
-
See Frost v. CorporationSearch
-
Page 285 U. S. 284 mere legislative fiat convert a business into a public utility. Producers' Transportation Co. v. RailroadSearch
-
in part, of record. Others are matters of common knowledge to those familiar with the ice business. Compare Muller v. OregonSearch
-
uniform. The balance of the population was, and still is, served by companies enjoying complete monopoly. Compare Munn v. IllinoisSearch
-
Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Ry. Co. v. IllinoisSearch
-
Budd v. NewSearch
-
Wolff Packing Co. v. CourtSearch
-
thus exercised Page 285 U. S. 295 was upheld by the Supreme Court of the State in Oklahoma Light & Power Co. v. CorporationSearch
-
Consumers' Light & Power Co. v. PhippsSearch
-
Commission by removing the requirement of a finding of virtual monopoly in each particular case, compare Budd v. NewSearch
-
York, 143 U. S. 517 , 143 U. S. 545 , with Brass v. StoeserSearch
-
degree of regulation. Such is the concern over possible incompetence, which dictates the licensing of dentists, Dent v. WestSearch
-
or the concern over possible dishonesty, which led to the licensing of auctioneers or hawkers, Baccus v. LouisianaSearch
-
German Alliance Insurance Co. v. LewisSearch
-
and by the decision of this Court, in Munn v. IllinoisSearch
-
but this Court held it to be consistent with the due process clause for a State to abolish the calling, Bartemeyer v. IowaSearch
-
U. S. 623 , or to establish a system limiting the number of licenses, Crowley v. ChristensenSearch
-
may be made exclusive in order that the patronage may be sufficient to justify maintaining the ferry service, Conway v. Taylor'sSearch
-
from the private dealers. Thus, a city may, if the local law permits, buy and sell at retail coal and wood, Jones v. CitySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial