Citation network
Cloverleaf Butter Co. Vs. Patterson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 02, 1942
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. 148 (1942) U.S. Supreme Court Cloverleaf Butter Co. v. PattersonSearch
-
U.S. 148 (1942) Cloverleaf Butter Co. v. PattersonSearch
-
and regulations concerning the manufacture of process or renovated butter exclude such state action. Cf. Hebe Co. v. ShawSearch
-
Corn Products Refg. Co. v. EddySearch
-
paragraphs state variations of this controversy or conclusions of law not controlling on the courts, Estate of Sanford v. Comm'rSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
effect of that action upon the national regulatory policy declared by the federal statute. Cf. Illinois Nat. Gas Co. v. CentralSearch
-
the product. United States v. DarbySearch
-
of commerce where national uniformity is not essential, either the state or federal government may act. Willson v. BlackbirdSearch
-
California v. ThompsonSearch
-
of federal power is exclusive and where it admits state action is narrow. For example, in Oregon-Washington R. Co. v. WashingtonSearch
-
was held to exclude a state quarantine against plant infestation. Yet, a little later, in Mintz v. BaldwinSearch
-
is clear, a single comparison will sufficiently illustrate the reasons which lead to a denial of state power. Savage v. JonesSearch
-
The Indiana Act was upheld. On the other hand, McDermott v. WisconsinSearch
-
doubt manifests the will of Congress that federal taxation shall not, of itself, incapacitate the state. Austin v. TennesseeSearch
-
shall not paralyze state action. Other regulations may or may not supersede state laws. Cf. Merchants' Exchange v. MissouriSearch
-
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. IllinoisSearch
-
Page 315 U. S. 163 regulatory features are exclusive. For this there is support in the precedents. McCray v. UnitedSearch
-
must be obtained from statutory provisions reasonably adapted to the constitutional objects of the legislation. Linder v. UnitedSearch
-
because the regulatory provisions in controversy are authorized by the Commerce Clause. Pittsburgh Melting Co. v. TottenSearch
-
while in interstate commerce or at any time thereafter. Cf. United States v. NineSearch
-
stock condition. We lay aside also, as inapplicable, the suggestion that the highest court of Alabama, in State v. CecilSearch
-
exported from the state. State power over food supplies held within its borders would extend at least so far. Sligh v. KirkwoodSearch
-
United States v. RockSearch
-
of its multistate activity, cannot be effectively regulated by isolated competing states. Cf. Steward Machine Co. v. DavisSearch
-
exists, recognize that federal action might forbid or exclude the state statutes approved in those instances. Savage v. JonesSearch
-
Corn Products Rfg. Co. v. EddySearch
-
Pacific States Co. v. WhiteSearch
-
Welch Co. v. NewSearch
-
Eichholz v. Comm'nSearch
-
Cooley v. BoardSearch
-
Bowman v. ChicagoSearch
-
Clark Distilling Co. v. WesternSearch
-
Kentucky Whip & Collar Co. v. IllinoisSearch
-
Merchants Exchange v. MissouriSearch
-
Whipple v. MartinsonSearch
-
Northwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. NebraskaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Cloverleaf Butter Co. v. PattersonSearch
-
Cf. Hebe Co. v. ShawSearch
-
Estate of Sanford v. Comm'rSearch
-
Cf. Illinois Nat. Gas Co. v. CentralSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial