Citation network
Parker Vs. Brown
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 04, 1943
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. 341 (1943) U.S. Supreme Court Parker v. BrownSearch
-
U.S. 341 (1943) Parker v. BrownSearch
-
it and shipping it in interstate commerce do not violate the Commerce Clause. P. 317 U. S. 359 . (2) Lemke v. FarmersSearch
-
Grain Co., 258 U. S. 50 , and Shafer v FarmersSearch
-
Peyton v. RailwaySearch
-
of a granted power is a familiar example of its constitutional power to suspend state laws. See Adams Express Co. v. CroningerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Napier v. AtlanticSearch
-
Illinois Gas Co. v. PublicSearch
-
A state may maintain a suit for damages under it, Georgia v. EvansSearch
-
U. S. 159 , but the United States may not, United States v. CooperSearch
-
to monopolize by individuals and corporations abundantly appears from its legislative history. See Apex Hosiery Co. v. LeaderSearch
-
United States v. AddystonSearch
-
Standard Oil Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Sherman Act by authorizing them to violate it, or by declaring that their action is lawful, Northern Securities Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
agreement or combination Page 317 U. S. 352 by others for restraint of trade, cf. Union Pacific R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
the conditions of its application. The required vote on the referendum is one of these conditions. Compare Currin v. WallaceSearch
-
Hampton & Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
as sovereign, imposed the restraint as an act of government which the Sherman Act did not undertake to prohibit. Olsen v. SmithSearch
-
Lowenstein v. EvansSearch
-
a pooling arrangement such as was promulgated under the California Prorate Act in the present case. See United States v. RockSearch
-
program either with or without the promulgation of a federal program by order of the Secretary. Cf. United States v. RockSearch
-
South Carolina Highway Dept. v. BarnwellSearch
-
California v. ThompsonSearch
-
In applying the mechanical test to determine when interstate commerce begins and ends ( see Federal Compress Co. v. McLeanSearch
-
is not interstate commerce even though the manufacturing process is of slight extent. Crescent Oil Co. v. MississippiSearch
-
Oliver Iron Co. v. LordSearch
-
Utah Power & Light Co. v. PfostSearch
-
Hope Gas Co. v. HallSearch
-
Heisler v. ThomasSearch
-
Champlin Refining Page 317 U. S. 361 Co. v. CommissionSearch
-
Bayside Fish Co. v. GentrySearch
-
where, aimed at matters of local concern, they had the effect of preventing commerce in the regulated article. Kidd v. PearsonSearch
-
Champlin Refining Co. v. CommissionSearch
-
Capital City Dairy Co. v. OhioSearch
-
Thompson v. ConsolidatedSearch
-
Bayside Fish Co. v. GentrySearch
-
buying where the purchaser expects in the usual course of business to resell in interstate commerce. Chassaniol v. GreenwoodSearch
-
for shipment in interstate commerce. It is for this reason that the present case is to be distinguished from Lemke v. FarmersSearch
-
without resale or processing was a Page 317 U. S. 362 part of the interstate commerce. Compare Chassaniol v. GreenwoodSearch
-
be attained by the accommodation of the competing demands of the state and national interests involved. See Di Santo v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
U. S. 34 , 273 U. S. 44 ( with which compare California v. ThompsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial