Citation network
California Vs. Zook
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 25, 1949
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. 725 (1949) U.S. Supreme Court California v. ZookSearch
-
U.S. 725 (1949) California v. ZookSearch
-
the Cooley case's broad delineation of the areas of state and national power over interstate commerce. Cooley v. PortSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Southern Pacific Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
longer any question that Congress can redefine the areas of local and national predominance, Prudential Insurance Co. v. BenjaminSearch
-
The Cooley rule and its later application, Southern Pacific Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
independent premises. But respondents seize upon only one part of the familiar phrase in Charleston & W.C. R. Co. v. VarnvilleSearch
-
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. PublicSearch
-
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. PorterSearch
-
bill of lading to the ICC, and that state laws on the subject were meant to be ineffective. See Cloverleaf Butter Co. v. PattersonSearch
-
whether Congress intended to make its jurisdiction exclusive. This has long been settled. Fox v. OhioSearch
-
How. 410, announced uncertainly what United States v. MarigoldSearch
-
U. S. 377 , 260 U. S. 384 . And see Union Brokerage Co. v. JensenSearch
-
U. S. 202 , 322 U. S. 208 . Asbell v. KansasSearch
-
U. S. 258 . And see the similar problem and similar answer by Brandeis, J., for the Court in Dickson v. UhlmannSearch
-
we know that normally congressional purpose to displace local laws must be clearly manifested. H. P. Welch Co. v. NewSearch
-
supra, 315 U. S. 156 . See also Hines v. DavidowitzSearch
-
Doc. 152, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 226, mentioning the financial irresponsibility of these carriers. And see California v. ThompsonSearch
-
police powers in considering a statute's validity under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Lincoln Federal Labor Union v. NorthwesternSearch
-
held that the highway regulation involved in this case is allowable State action before Congress acted. California v. ThompsonSearch
-
purpose to displace local laws and establish a uniform rule beyond which states may not go. See Southern R. Co. v. RailroadSearch
-
of the difficulties facing state regulation of interstate commerce, 33 M.C.C. at 76, because of cases such as Buck v. KuykendallSearch
-
not present in the cause before us. Since the Page 336 U. S. 737 ICC order was issued after California v. ThompsonSearch
-
The ICC order was upheld by the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Drake v. UnitedSearch
-
States, November 18, 1942 (3 Federal Carriers Cases 2297). We affirmed. Levin v. UnitedSearch
-
People v. ReedSearch
-
Compare Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. HarrisSearch
-
U. S. 412 , with Northern Pac. R. Co. v. WashingtonSearch
-
New York v. CompagnieSearch
-
Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. v. WashingtonSearch
-
U. S. 87 , and Cloverleaf Butter Co. v. PattersonSearch
-
Southern R. Co. v. RailroadSearch
-
Comm'n, 236 U. S. 439 , and Chicago, R.I. & P. R. Co. v. HardwickSearch
-
Farmers' Elevator Co., 226 U. S. 426 . And see Jerome v. UnitedSearch
-
E.g., South Carolina State Highway Department v. BarnwellSearch
-
H. P. Welch Co. v. NewSearch
-
ex rel. Foss Co., 302 U. S. 1 , 302 U. S. 10 . See the distinction of Buck v. KuykendallSearch
-
U. S. 307 , and Bush & Sons Co. v. MaloySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial