Citation network
Edwards Vs. California
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 24, 1941
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. 160 (1941) U.S. Supreme Court Edwards v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. 160 (1941) Edwards v. CaliforniaSearch
-
no opinion. Pp. 314 U. S. 176 , 314 U. S. 177 . Page 314 U. S. 161 3. Remarks in New York v. MilnSearch
-
of local concern even though they may thereby affect interstate Page 314 U. S. 173 commerce. California v. ThompsonSearch
-
of the legislative efforts of the States to solve such difficulties. See Olsen v. NebraskaSearch
-
Baldwin v. SeeligSearch
-
political pressure upon the California legislature in order to obtain a change in policy. South Carolina Highway Dept. v. BarnwellSearch
-
Milk Control Board v. EisenbergSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
It is true that support for this contention may be found in early decisions of this Court. In City of New York v. MilnSearch
-
Railway Company v. HusenSearch
-
T. Ry. Page 314 U. S. 177 Co. v. HaberSearch
-
and to persons similarly situated, we do not consider ourselves bound by the language referred to. City of New York v. MilnSearch
-
Gloucester Ferry Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Covington Bridge Co. v. KentuckySearch
-
Hoke v. UnitedSearch
-
Caminetti v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. HillSearch
-
Mitchell v. UnitedSearch
-
It is immaterial whether or not the transportation is commercial in character. See Caminetti v. UnitedSearch
-
privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against state interference. Mr. Justice Moody, in Twining v. NewSearch
-
as a right fundamental to the national character of our Federal government. It was so decided in 1867 by Crandall v. NevadaSearch
-
citizen to travel to the seat of his national government or its offices throughout the country. And see United States v. WheelerSearch
-
Hence, the dictum in United States v. WheelerSearch
-
of the Constitution. Id., p. 83 U. S. 79 . That was also acknowledged in Twining v. NewSearch
-
Jersey, supra. And Chief Justice Fuller, in Williams v. FearsSearch
-
In the face of this history, I cannot accede to the suggestion ( Helson & Randolph v. KentuckySearch
-
U. S. 404 , 296 U. S. 444 ) that the commerce clause is the appropriate explanation of Crandall v. NevadaSearch
-
of the Constitution. Corfield v. CoryellSearch
-
of that State. But the thrust of the Crandall case is deeper. Mr. Justice Miller adverted to Corfield v. CoryellSearch
-
and Ward v. MarylandSearch
-
whatever its reach, is primarily concerned with the incidents of residence (the matter involved in United States v. WheelerSearch
-
Hague v. CommitteeSearch
-
See dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Stone in Colgate v. HarveySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Edwards v. CaliforniaSearch
-
California v. ThompsonSearch
-
See Olsen v. NebraskaSearch
-
South Carolina Highway Dept. v. BarnwellSearch
-
Court. In City of New York v. MilnSearch
-
Co. v. HaberSearch
-
City of New York v. MilnSearch
-
See Caminetti v. UnitedSearch
-
Twining v. NewSearch
-
Crandall v. NevadaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial