Citation network
Campbell Vs. Hussey
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 18, 1961
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. 297 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Campbell v. HusseySearch
-
U.S. 297 (1961) Campbell v. HusseySearch
-
Sales at these warehouses are sales within the competence of congress to regulate. As stated in Mulford v. SmithSearch
-
state regulation is as fatal as state regulations which conflict with the federal scheme. Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. PorterSearch
-
Rice v. SantaSearch
-
Amendment. Plainly the case was one to be heard by a three-judge court. See Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. JacobsenSearch
-
The manner of sale is described in Townsend v. YeomansSearch
-
American Tobacco Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
purpose to justify a finding of a congressional intent to preempt merely complementary state legislation. In Townsend v. YeomansSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
two years later, the Court was called upon to pass on the constitutionality of the Tobacco Inspection Act in Currin v. WallaceSearch
-
in Townsend v. YeomansSearch
-
by this Court. Certainly, the three cases which it cites do not support its action here. Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. PorterSearch
-
is plainly shown by the authorities relied upon to support its passing reference. The first case cited, Napier v. AtlanticSearch
-
applies here. Page 368 U. S. 313 The second case relied on by the Court for its mechanical formula is Rice v. SantaSearch
-
Mond, however, this Court did, in California v. ZookSearch
-
decided today. The correct test in determining whether a federal act results in preemption is that stated in Rice v. SantaSearch
-
Even this Court, in times past, has recognized the historic powers of the States in this area. In Turner v. MarylandSearch
-
Bethlehem Steel Co. v. NewSearch
-
The quotation relied upon from Mr. Justice Holmes is from his opinion for the Court in Pennsylvania R. Co. v. PublicSearch
-
upon for a mechanistic rule of preemption is an earlier statement of his in Charleston & Western Carolina R. Co. v. VarnvilleSearch
-
Bethlehem Steel Co. v. NewSearch
-
Napier v. AtlanticSearch
-
Huron Portland Cement Co. v. CitySearch
-
all state laws touching on the same subject are automatically destroyed. See also San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Campbell v. HusseySearch
-
Mulford v. SmithSearch
-
See Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. JacobsenSearch
-
In Turner v. MarylandSearch
-
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. PublicSearch
-
Charleston & Western Carolina R. Co. v. VarnvilleSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial