Citation network
Bob-lo Excursion Co. Vs. Michigan
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 02, 1948
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 28 (1948) U.S. Supreme Court Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. MichiganSearch
-
U.S. 28 (1948) Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. MichiganSearch
-
of the Federal Constitution. P. 333 U. S. 34 . 4. Hall v. DeCuirSearch
-
U. S. 485 , and Morgan v. VirginiaSearch
-
Lord v. GoodallSearch
-
Edwards v. CaliforniaSearch
-
a hundred years they have exercised like power under the local diversity branch of the formula announced in Cooley v. BoardSearch
-
See Union Brokerage Co. v. JensenSearch
-
of Congress over foreign commerce excludes all regulation by the states. But it verges on that view in regarding Hall v. DeCuirSearch
-
U. S. 485 , supplemented by Morgan v. VirginiaSearch
-
U. S. 373 , and Pryce v. Swedish-AmericanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
similar, and, in many instances, substantially identical, legislation. The statutory citations are given in Morgan v. VirginiaSearch
-
and equal accommodations' afforded by such conveyances. The Michigan enactment has been held constitutional. Bolden v. GrandSearch
-
Mich. 686, 695, 27 N.W.2d 139, 143. The court distinguished Meisner v. DetroitSearch
-
Cf. Mitchell v. UnitedSearch
-
et seq. Steele v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Tunstall v. BrotherhoodSearch
-
U. S. 210 . The direction of national policy is clearly in accord with Michigan policy. Cf. also Hirabayashi v. UnitedSearch
-
Korematsu v. UnitedSearch
-
In Olsen v. SmithSearch
-
Other cases upholding state regulation of foreign commerce are to the same effect. Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. JoliffeSearch
-
Anderson v. PacificSearch
-
Coast S.S. Co., 225 U. S. 187 . Cf. Clyde Mallory Lines v. AlabamaSearch
-
Pigeon River Improvement, Slide & Boom Co. v. CharlesSearch
-
Cf. Port Richmond Ferry v. HudsonSearch
-
by the Court, and which is so important that it deserves to be stated separately. Page 333 U. S. 41 Hall v. DeCuirSearch
-
held a State may require of interstate carriers in the absence of a conflicting federal law. Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. LarabeeSearch
-
protection of the civil rights of its citizens against discrimination by reason of race or color. Railway Mail Assn. v. CorsiSearch
-
and uniformity essential to its proper functioning. See Southern Page 333 U. S. 42 Pacific R. Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
Morgan v. VirginiaSearch
-
according to color so as to grant freedom of movement in the channels of commerce to certain classes only. Cf. Edwards v. CaliforniaSearch
-
S. 177 -181. The federal policy reflected in Acts of Congress indeed bars any such discrimination ( see Mitchell v. UnitedSearch
-
Mitchell v. UnitedSearch
-
equality of accommodations for white and Negro passengers was held invalid as applied to interstate commerce. Hall v. DeCuirSearch
-
the same principle, a state statute requiring segregation was held invalid as applied to interstate commerce. Morgan v. VirginiaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. MichiganSearch
-
Hall v. DeCuirSearch
-
and Morgan v. VirginiaSearch
-
Edwards v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Cooley v. BoardSearch
-
and Pryce v. Swedish-AmericanSearch
-
Bolden v. GrandSearch
-
Meisner v. DetroitSearch
-
Steele v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Hirabayashi v. UnitedSearch
-
Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. JoliffeSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial