Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Nippert Vs. Richmond

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 25, 1946

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

68 entries 4 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. Postal Telegraph-cable Co. Vs. Richmond US Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1919
  2. Walling Vs. Michigan US Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1886
  3. Southern Pacific Co. Vs. Gallagher US Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1939
  4. Real Silk Hosiery Mills Vs. Portland US Supreme Court · May 25, 1925
  5. U.S. 416 (1946) U.S. Supreme Court Nippert v. Richmond
    Search
  6. U.S. 416 (1946) Nippert v. Richmond
    Search
  7. the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. Pp. 327 U. S. 417 , 327 U. S. 434 . 2. Robbins v. Shelby
    Search
  8. McGoldrick v. Berwind-White
    Search
  9. beginning with Robbins v. Shelby
    Search
  10. with or substantially similar to the facts of this case. Among the latest of these is Real Silk Hosiery Mills v. Portland
    Search
  11. an out-of-state corporation whose representatives solicited orders for subsequent interstate shipment. Cf. Best & Co. v. Maxwell
    Search
  12. so that those rulings no longer can stand consistently with the later ones. Their principal reliance is on McGoldrick v. Berwind-White
    Search
  13. and by adding the contention, given mere substance since the argument by our decision in International Shoe Co. v. Washington
    Search
  14. See Best & Co. v. Maxwell
    Search
  15. Nelson v. Sears
    Search
  16. or undue burden in the sense applicable to these problems. In view of the ruling in International Shoe Co. v. Washington
    Search
  17. was thought to forbid the levy and collection of the tax in Adams Mfg. Co. v. Storen
    Search
  18. salesmen become more apparent when the consequences of increasing the amount of the tax are considered. Cf. McGoldrick v. Berwind-White
    Search
  19. by sending solicitors regularly and continuously into several states, cf. International Shoe Co. v. Washington
    Search
  20. its fair share of the cost of local government, more especially in view of recent trends in this field. McGoldrick v. Berwind-White
    Search
  21. See the authorities cited in McGoldrick v. Berwind-White
    Search
  22. John v. Rosser
    Search
  23. Some reliance appears to be placed also upon other more recent cases, including International Harvester Co. v. Department
    Search
  24. of Treasury, 322 U. S. 340 , and General Trading Co. v. State
    Search
  25. by the practical operation of a state taxing statute. . . . It is enough for present purposes that the rule of Robbins v. Shelby
    Search
  26. U.S. at 309 U. S. 56 -57. In Best & Co. v. Maxwell
    Search
  27. In McGoldrick v. Berwind-White
    Search
  28. Co., . . . we pointed out that the line of decisions following Robbins v. Shelby
    Search
  29. Counsel cite the Court's statement made in differentiating Adams Mfg. Co. v. Storen
    Search
  30. The latest instance decided here being McLeod v. Dilworth
    Search
  31. See the authorities cited in note 23 The Berwind-White and other recent cases, including Best & Co. v. Maxwell
    Search
  32. Cf. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Richmond
    Search
  33. Western Live Stock v. Bureau
    Search
  34. Nelson v. Sears
    Search
  35. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. v. State
    Search
  36. regulation squarely conflicts with regulation imposed by Congress governing interstate trade or traffic, United States v. Frankfort
    Search
  37. whether or not also in some instances in addition to complete exclusion from passing through the state, Collins v. Yosemite
    Search
  38. Park Co., 304 U. S. 518 , in the absence of such congressional action. Cf. Carter v. Virginia
    Search
  39. Ziffrin v. Reeves
    Search
  40. Cf. Western Live Stock v. Bureau
    Search
  41. Baldwin v. G.A
    Search
  42. Best & Co v. Maxwell
    Search
  43. See, in addition to the instant case, Dunston v. Norfolk
    Search
  44. Cf. Galveston, H. & S.A. Ry. Co. v. Texas
    Search
  45. Lawrence v. State
    Search
  46. in solicitation there. The presumption on the facts before us is the other way. Moreover, here as in Best & Co. v. Maxwell
    Search
  47. acting to nullify state legislation on the ground that it burdens interstate commerce. See Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona
    Search
  48. operation Page 327 U. S. 436 they worked to the disadvantage of interstate commerce. See McGoldrick v. Berwind-White
    Search
  49. seems to reflect no more than a bona fide effort to make interstate commerce pay its way. Western Live Stock Co. v. Bureau
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Nippert v. Richmond
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial