Citation network
Carter Vs. Virginia
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 31, 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. 131 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Carter v. VirginiaSearch
-
U.S. 131 (1944) Carter v. VirginiaSearch
-
regulatory licenses for through shipments of liquor in order to guard against violations of their own laws. Duckworth v. ArkansasSearch
-
of Congressional action is admissible to protect the state from injuries arising from that commerce. California v. ThompsonSearch
-
Clark v. PaulSearch
-
the requirement that the truck follow a direct stated route is within the rule of Duckworth Page 321 U. S. 136 v. ArkansasSearch
-
of one who wishes to engage in interstate trade of a kind dangerous to well recognized local interests. California v. ThompsonSearch
-
As no procedural due process point is raised, we accept its conclusion without further examination. United Gas Co. v. TexasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of the exceptional problems involved in successfully regulating trade in intoxicating liquors. Clark Distilling Co. v. WesternSearch
-
and a limitation of through transit to rail carriers would be consonant with the Commerce Clause. Cf. Ziffrin, Inc. v. ReevesSearch
-
through a state is not transportation or importation into the state within the meaning of the Amendment. Collins v. YosemiteSearch
-
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON concurs in the result only, for the reasons stated in his separate opinion in Duckworth v. ArkansasSearch
-
Together with No. 198, Dickerson et al. v. VirginiaSearch
-
See State Board of Equalization v. Young'sSearch
-
Mahoney v. JosephSearch
-
Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. LiquorSearch
-
Joseph S. Finch & Co. v. McKittrickSearch
-
State Board v. Young'sSearch
-
the Commerce Clause except where they conflict with valid federal statutes. Cf. dissenting opinions, McCarroll v. DixieSearch
-
Gwin, White & Prince, Inc. v. HennefordSearch
-
Adams Manufacturing Co. v. StorenSearch
-
local, not national, regulation of the liquor traffic is now the general Constitutional policy. Ziffrin, Inc. v. ReevesSearch
-
State Board of Equalization of California v. Young'sSearch
-
as thorough a consideration as it ever gave to a problem, this Court, in a long series of cases beginning with Bowman v. ChicagoSearch
-
Clark Distilling Co. v. WesternSearch
-
Md. R. Co., 242 U. S. 311 , 242 U. S. 323 , 242 U. S. 327 , citing Leisy v. HardinSearch
-
Vance v. VandercookSearch
-
Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. StewartSearch
-
Virginia would be beyond Virginia's powers even if the shipment of the liquor were for delivery into Virginia. Heyman v. SouthernSearch
-
U. S. 129 . Cases like California v. ThompsonSearch
-
such legislation as is before us in the case of liquor arriving in Virginia for ultimate delivery without. Heyman v. HaysSearch
-
to be deemed to be imported into the State, and therefore subject to control by that State. The decision in Collins v. YosemiteSearch
-
of the liquor traffic. The issue was fairly presented in Mahoney Page 321 U. S. 143 v. TrinerSearch
-
elsewhere. 8. Fuller consideration has therefore convinced me that the power exercised by the State in Duckworth v. ArkansasSearch
-
Finch & Co. v. McKittrickSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Carter v. VirginiaSearch
-
California v. ThompsonSearch
-
United Gas Co. v. TexasSearch
-
the Commerce Clause. Cf. Ziffrin, Inc. v. ReevesSearch
-
of the Amendment. Collins v. YosemiteSearch
-
McCarroll v. DixieSearch
-
Bowman v. ChicagoSearch
-
Virginia. Heyman v. SouthernSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial