Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Youngstown Co. Vs. Bowers

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 24, 1959

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

51 entries 4 linked 47 unlinked
Show
  1. Low Vs. Austin US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1871
  2. Cook Vs. Pennsylvania US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  3. Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. Vs. Bowers US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1959
  4. Anglo-chilean Nitrate Sales Corp Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · Feb 06, 1933
  5. U.S. 534 (1959) U.S. Supreme Court Youngstown Co. v. Bowers
    Search
  6. U.S. 534 (1959) Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Bowers
    Search
  7. of the Constitution, and that, therefore, the materials had become subject to state taxation. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt
    Search
  8. appellant, a resident of Ohio, the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Allied Stores v. Bowers
    Search
  9. from their terms. And, early in our national history, Chief Justice Marshall held, in the landmark case of Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  10. In Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt
    Search
  11. Id. at 324 U. S. 665 . Thus, though Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  12. are not exempted from state taxation by the Import-Export Clause, and Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt
    Search
  13. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt
    Search
  14. supra, at 324 U. S. 665 . Compare Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  15. thought that Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  16. Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  17. See Madison, Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, August 28, 1787 (Hunt & Scott ed.). And see, e.g., Cook v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  18. Richfield Oil Corp. v. State
    Search
  19. goods that have been so imported for sale ( Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  20. May & Co. v. New
    Search
  21. from other countries as would result if we approved the views pressed upon us by the manufacturers. Compare May & Co. v. City
    Search
  22. For the reasons stated in Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers
    Search
  23. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Bowers
    Search
  24. N.E.2d 313, 316. We have today affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio in Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers
    Search
  25. Together with No. 44, United States Plywood Corp. v. City
    Search
  26. Waring v. The
    Search
  27. until displaced by congressional legislation. This leeway to the States was established by the decision in Cooley v. Board
    Search
  28. of Wardens, 12 How. 299, foreshadowed by Marshall's decision in Willson v. Black
    Search
  29. hundred and thirty-two years, in a course of decision following Chief Justice Marshall's seminal discussion in Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  30. it becomes necessary to set forth the facts of the two cases now before us. In No. 44, United States Plywood Corp. v. City
    Search
  31. such lumber before running it through dry kilns to further remove moisture. In No. 9, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Bowers
    Search
  32. must flow from the careful and authoritative exposition of Chief Justice Marshall in the governing case of Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  33. concerned with applying to the particular facts before the Court the considerations and standards formulated in Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  34. Wheat. at 25 U. S. 441 -442. Since, in Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  35. foreign good remained an import and thus free from state levies. The counsel for the State of Maryland in Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  36. formulas of Marshall and Taney. A few of the more important examples will serve as concrete illustrations. In Low v. Austin
    Search
  37. This Court rejected the reasoning of the state court as in conflict with the principles of Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  38. Similarly, in Anglo-Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp. v. Alabama
    Search
  39. standards governing the application of the Import Clause received recent reaffirmation in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt
    Search
  40. Although one Justice dissented in Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  41. were imported, are liable to state taxation. On the contrary, Chief Justice Taney, in affirming the doctrine of Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  42. U.S. Supreme Court Youngstown Co. v. Bowers
    Search
  43. the Fourteenth Amendment. Allied Stores v. Bowers
    Search
  44. of Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  45. the Import-Export Clause, and Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt
    Search
  46. Compare Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  47. Compare May & Co. v. City
    Search
  48. United States Plywood Corp. v. City
    Search
  49. Cooley v. Board
    Search
  50. Willson v. Black
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial