Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Bode Vs. Barrett

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 09, 1953

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

31 entries 1 linked 30 unlinked
Show
  1. interstate Transit, Inc. Vs. Lindsey US Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1931
  2. U.S. 583 (1953) U.S. Supreme Court Bode v. Barrett
    Search
  3. U.S. 583 (1953) Bode v. Barrett
    Search
  4. McCarroll v. Dixie
    Search
  5. but has the same infirmities as the tax on motor vehicles which the Court invalidated in Interstate Transit, Inc. v. Lindsey
    Search
  6. Clearly it is within the police power of Illinois to exact such a tax, at least from intrastate operators. Hendrick v. Maryland
    Search
  7. the burden of showing that the tax deprives them of rights which the Commerce Clause protects. Cf. Southern R. Co. v. King
    Search
  8. The case is therefore to be distinguished from those situations where by nature of the tax or its incidence, Sprout v. South
    Search
  9. Spector Motor Service v. O'Connor
    Search
  10. is limited only if, in substance and effect, it is the exertion of a different and a forbidden power, Magnano Co. v. Hamilton
    Search
  11. U. S. 44 , as, for example, the taxation of a privilege protected by the First Amendment. See Murdock v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  12. since neither private nor public carriers have the right to use the highways without payment of a fee, see Hendrick v. Maryland
    Search
  13. dignity, no showing is made that any of the appellants is the victim of an invidious classification. Cf. Stephenson v. Binford
    Search
  14. residents. That objection, so far as the Fourteenth Amendment is concerned, was adequately answered in Storaasli v. Minnesota
    Search
  15. of the Constitution. See St. Louis & S.F. R. Co. v. James
    Search
  16. Kane v. New
    Search
  17. Together with No. 274, Co-Ordinated Transport, Inc., et al. v. Barrett
    Search
  18. Cf. Southern R. Co. v. King
    Search
  19. Page 344 U. S. 589 As far back as 1888, in Leloup v. Port
    Search
  20. Indeed, ever since Western Union Tel. Co. v. Kansas
    Search
  21. U. S. 1 , and Pullman Co. v. Kansas
    Search
  22. U.S. Supreme Court Bode v. Barrett
    Search
  23. Hendrick v. Maryland
    Search
  24. Sprout v. South
    Search
  25. Magnano Co. v. Hamilton
    Search
  26. the First Amendment. See Murdock v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  27. Cf. Stephenson v. Binford
    Search
  28. Storaasli v. Minnesota
    Search
  29. Leloup v. Port
    Search
  30. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Kansas
    Search
  31. and Pullman Co. v. Kansas
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial