Citation network
Carter Vs. Carter Coal Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 18, 1936
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
-
Carter v. CarterSearch
-
Coal Co. - 298 U.S. 238 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court Carter v. CarterSearch
-
Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936) Carter v. CarterSearch
-
before interstate commerce has begun, or to sale and distribution after it has ended. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
to bring such suits under the circumstances disclosed is settled by the recent decision of this court in Ashwander v. TennesseeSearch
-
is definitely imposed, and its exaction certain to ensue. In Pennsylvania v. WestSearch
-
Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
Terrace v. ThompsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Swift & Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Euclid v. AmblerSearch
-
City Bank Co. v. SchnaderSearch
-
While the lawmaker is entirely free to ignore the ordinary meanings of words and make definitions of his own, Karnuth v. UnitedSearch
-
Tyler v. UnitedSearch
-
adapted to the end, and not prohibited by, but consistent with, the letter and spirit of the Constitution. McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
Martin v. Hunter'sSearch
-
It made no grant of authority to Congress to legislate substantively for the general welfare, United States v. ButlerSearch
-
exists, save as the general welfare may be promoted by the exercise of the powers which are granted. Compare Jacobson v. MassachusettsSearch
-
of some of them to act at all have resulted in injurious confusion and embarrassment. See Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
action it thus far has escaped discovery. Replying directly to the suggestion advanced by counsel in Kansas v. ColoradoSearch
-
this court said in Munn v. IllinoisSearch
-
Collector v. DaySearch
-
to be drawn therefrom. It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. DagenhartSearch
-
of international law is a wholly different matter, which it is not necessary now to consider. See, however, Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
Nishimura Ekiu v. UnitedSearch
-
Fong Yue Ting v. UnitedSearch
-
State powers can neither be appropriated, on the one hand, nor abdicated, on the other. As this court said in Texas v. WhiteSearch
-
of that duty, the opinion of the lawmakers that a statute passed by them is valid must be given great weight, Adkins v. Children'sSearch
-
s opinion, that the statute will prove greatly or generally beneficial is wholly irrelevant to the inquiry. Schechter v. UnitedSearch
-
negatively -- that is to say, from the points of view as to what it includes and what it excludes. In Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
different states. And the power to regulate commerce embraces the instruments by which commerce is carried on. Welton v. MissouriSearch
-
Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Hopkins v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 171 U. S. 578 , 171 U. S. 597 . In Adair v. UnitedSearch
-
In Veazie v. MoorSearch
-
The distinction between manufacture and commerce was discussed in Kidd v. PearsonSearch
-
their production or manufacture subject to federal regulation under the commerce clause. As this court said in Coe v. ErrolSearch
-
pertinent where the question, as here, is with regard to the power of regulation. The case was relied upon in Kidd v. PearsonSearch
-
In Heisler v. ThomasSearch
-
In Oliver Iron Co. v. LordSearch
-
Champlin Rfg. Co. v. CorporationSearch
-
in respect of the latter, to regulation only by the federal government. Utah Power & L. Co. v. PfostSearch
-
U. S. 165 , 286 U. S. 182 . Production is not commerce, but a step in preparation for commerce. Chassaniol v. GreenwoodSearch
-
antecedents of production constitutes a transaction in, or forms any part of, interstate commerce. Schechter Corp. v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial