Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

California Vs. Thompson

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 28, 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

64 entries 8 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. Missouri Pacific R. Co. Vs. Norwood US Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1931
  2. Plumley Vs. Massachusetts US Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1894
  3. Savage Vs. Jones US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1912
  4. Maurer Vs. Hamilton US Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1940
  5. Erb Vs. Morasch US Supreme Court · May 14, 1900
  6. Clyde Mallory Lines Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · Dec 09, 1935
  7. Continental Baking Co. Vs. Woodring US Supreme Court · May 23, 1932
  8. Ziffrin, Inc. Vs. Reeves US Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1939
  9. U.S. 109 (1941) U.S. Supreme Court California v. Thompson
    Search
  10. U.S. 109 (1941) California v. Thompson
    Search
  11. to Texas by.a carrier who, so far as appears, made only the single trip. P. 313 U. S. 115 . 4. Di Santo v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  12. trip in question. The state appellate court reversed the judgment of conviction, holding, on the authority of Di Santo v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  13. to exercise its regulatory power. The statute is not a revenue measure. Cf. Texas Transport & Terminal Co. v. New
    Search
  14. as well as interstate, and so does not discriminate against interstate commerce. Cf. Real Silk Hosiery Mills v. Portland
    Search
  15. Congress has not exercised its power, even though the regulation affects interstate commerce. Ever since Willson v. Blackbird
    Search
  16. Creek Marsh Co., 2 Pet. 245, and Cooley v. Board
    Search
  17. of this Court, subject only to other applicable constitutional restraints. See cases collected in Di Santo v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  18. A state may license trainmen engaged in interstate commerce in order to insure their skill and fitness. Smith v. Alabama
    Search
  19. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Alabama
    Search
  20. U. S. 96 . It may define the size of crews manning interstate trains. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Arkansas
    Search
  21. U. S. 249 , and prescribe regulations for payment of their wages. Erie R. Co. v. Williams
    Search
  22. cars to be heated, and guard posts to be placed on bridges of an interstate railroad. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co. v. New
    Search
  23. York, 165 U. S. 628 . It may limit the speed of interstate trains within city limits. Erb v. Morasch
    Search
  24. U. S. 584 . It may require an interstate railroad to eliminate grade crossings. Erie R. Co. v. Public
    Search
  25. laws applicable to merchandise moving in interstate commerce as a means of protecting local health. Morgan's S.S. Co. v. Louisiana
    Search
  26. Compagnie Francaise v. Board
    Search
  27. and convenient use of its harbors and navigable waterways unless there is conflict with some act of Congress. Willson v. Blackbird
    Search
  28. Clyde Mallory Lines v. Alabama
    Search
  29. U. S. 261 , 296 U. S. 267 . It may regulate pilots and pilotage in its harbors. Cooley v. Board
    Search
  30. provided only that the regulation neither discriminates against nor substantially obstructs the commerce. Turner v. Maryland
    Search
  31. Patapsco Guana Co. v. North
    Search
  32. South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell
    Search
  33. not one of prohibiting interstate commerce or licensing it on conditions which restrict or obstruct it. Cf. Crutcher v. Kentucky
    Search
  34. Dahnke-Walker Co. v. Bondurant
    Search
  35. working instrument of government, has foreclosed regulation, such as the present, by local authority. In Di Santo v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  36. this Court took a different view. Following what it conceived to be the reasoning of McCall v. California
    Search
  37. that the regulation does not in any other respect unnecessarily obstruct interstate commerce. Continental Baking Co. v. Woodring
    Search
  38. Bradley v. Public
    Search
  39. South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell
    Search
  40. H. P. Welch Co. v. New
    Search
  41. Eichholz v. Public
    Search
  42. U. S. 598 , 309 U. S. 603 , and see Ziffrin, Inc. v. Reeves
    Search
  43. uniformity in the regulation of the commerce in matters of national concern. See Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Illinois
    Search
  44. The decision in the Di Santo case was a departure from this principle, which has been recognized since Cooley v. Board
    Search
  45. U.S. Supreme Court California v. Thompson
    Search
  46. Di Santo v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  47. of Di Santo v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  48. Cf. Texas Transport & Terminal Co. v. New
    Search
  49. Cf. Real Silk Hosiery Mills v. Portland
    Search
  50. Willson v. Blackbird
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial