Citation network
Pollock Vs. Williams
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 10, 1944
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. 4 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Pollock v. WilliamsSearch
-
U.S. 4 (1944) Pollock v. WilliamsSearch
-
J. v. O'AlboraSearch
-
It read our decisions in Bailey v. AlabamaSearch
-
and Taylor v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Congress thus raised both a shield and a sword against forced labor because of debt. Clyatt v. UnitedSearch
-
Then came the twice-considered case of Bailey v. AlabamaSearch
-
U. S. 10 This Court held the presumption, in such a context, to be unconstitutional. Later came United States v. ReynoldsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and United States v. BroughtonSearch
-
It held the Alabama statute unconstitutional, and employers under it subject to prosecution. In Taylor v. GeorgiaSearch
-
was indicted under the Federal Act for arresting a debtor to peonage, and we sustained the indictment. United States v. GaskinSearch
-
In 1905, this Court decided Clyatt v. UnitedSearch
-
In 1911, in Bailey v. AlabamaSearch
-
Florida Supreme Court Page 322 U. S. 13 held this act, standing alone, void under the authority of Bailey v. AlabamaSearch
-
but in transactions that did not involve involuntary labor to discharge a debt. James-Dickinson Farm Mortgage Co. v. HarrySearch
-
to punish fraud, the inevitable effect of the law was to punish failure to perform labor contracts. In Taylor v. GeorgiaSearch
-
the inquiry further than the Act before us. Page 322 U. S. 25 Another matter deserves notice. In Bailey v. AlabamaSearch
-
the prisoner to testify to his uncommunicated intent, which handicapped him in meeting the presumption. In Taylor v. GeorgiaSearch
-
as against presumptions. These distinctions, we think, are without consequence. As Mr. Justice Byrnes said in Taylor v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Libtz v. ColemanSearch
-
Williams v. PollockSearch
-
United States v. EberhartSearch
-
United States v. McClellanSearch
-
Taylor v. UnitedSearch
-
Goode v. NelsonSearch
-
Phillips v. BellSearch
-
Fla. 225, 94 So. 699. In this case, no reference was made to the prior decision of the Florida court in Goode v. NelsonSearch
-
Florida Laws 1943, c. 22000, approved June 10, 1943. Taylor v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U. S. 587 , 294 U. S. 589 . See Lisenba v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Broad River Power Co. v. SouthSearch
-
Demorest v. CitySearch
-
Loeb v. JenningsSearch
-
Dunbar v. AtlantaSearch
-
Ga.App. 434, 67 S.E. 107. Cf. Chicago v. WilliamsSearch
-
Chicago v. ColemanSearch
-
which coerces that labor by fear of a conviction obtained by a presumption of law which may be false in fact. Taylor v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Legislation need not seek to correct every abuse by a single enactment. The state may select its objective. Whitney v. CaliforniaSearch
-
not in peonage, work for a debt, but in punishment for crime, probably in the county work house. Cf. United States v. ReynoldsSearch
-
not the first challenge of the act which has appeared in this court. The identical matter was considered in Phillips v. BellSearch
-
The court then took up Bailey v. AlabamaSearch
-
play. Not being faced with that problem here, we conclude that the first Bailey decision and ours in Phillips v. BellSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Pollock v. WilliamsSearch
-
Clyatt v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial