Citation network
CurrIn Vs. Wallace
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 30, 1939
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
-
U.S. 1 (1939) U.S. Supreme Court Currin v. WallaceSearch
-
U.S. 1 (1939) Currin v. WallaceSearch
-
plaintiffs and defendants, entitling plaintiffs to invoke the Declaratory Judgment Act. See Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. HaworthSearch
-
transportation to another, the commerce includes the purchase quite as much as it does the transportation. Swift & Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. BondurantSearch
-
Lemke v. Farmers'Search
-
Flanagan v. FederalSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Shafer v. Farmers'Search
-
Wisconsin Railroad Comm'n v. ChicagoSearch
-
false or misleading statements as to the ingredients of commodities or the effects of their use. See Seven Cases v. UnitedSearch
-
par. 2. See Turner v. MarylandSearch
-
Pacific States Co. v. WhiteSearch
-
to articles purchased for shipment to other States are subject to the paramount regulatory power of Congress. Turner v. MarylandSearch
-
relation to the sales in interstate and foreign commerce which Congress thus undertakes to govern. In Townsend v. YeomansSearch
-
par. 1). Clark Distilling Co. v. WesternSearch
-
Undoubtedly, the exercise of the commerce power is subject to the Fifth Amendment ( Monongahela Navigation Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
but that Amendment, unlike the Fourteenth, has no equal protection clause. LaBelle Iron Works v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 256 U. S. 377 , 256 U. S. 392 . Steward Machine Co. v. DavisSearch
-
par. 18. See Panama Refining Co. v. RyanSearch
-
Schechter Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Similar conditions are frequently found in police regulations. Cusack Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
where a group of producers may make the law and force it upon a minority ( see Page 306 U. S. 16 Carter v. CarterSearch
-
of property is imposed not by the legislature, but by other property owners ( see Washington ex rel. Seattle Trust Co. v. RobergeSearch
-
favorable vote upon the referendum is one of these conditions. The distinction was pointed out in Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
the Interstate Commerce Commission to fix standards for safety devices and equipment ( St. Louis, Iron Mountain R. Co. v. TaylorSearch
-
Napier v. AtlanticSearch
-
obstructions to navigation and to specify and prescribe the structural changes that are required ( Union Bridge Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
of permissible delegation which we applied in relation to the administration of the forest reserve in United States v. GrimaudSearch
-
to the allocation of licenses, wave lengths, etc. in Federal Radio Commission v. NelsonSearch
-
to the exercise of the powers conferred upon the Interstate Commerce Commission in New York Central Securities Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
The methods are similar to those followed in Georgia as described in Townsend v. YeomansSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Currin v. WallaceSearch
-
the Declaratory Judgment Act. See Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. HaworthSearch
-
Swift & Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
See Seven Cases v. UnitedSearch
-
See Turner v. MarylandSearch
-
of Congress. Turner v. MarylandSearch
-
In Townsend v. YeomansSearch
-
Clark Distilling Co. v. WesternSearch
-
Monongahela Navigation Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
LaBelle Iron Works v. UnitedSearch
-
Steward Machine Co. v. DavisSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial