HicklIn Vs. Coney - Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Decided on: Dec-04-1933

Court: US Supreme Court

LAW: the Fourteenth Amendment, chapter 162, Section 2 of Act No

PERSON: Hicklin, CHIEF JUSTICE, Stephenson, Supreme Lodge, F. S. Royster Guano Co., Clark v. Poor, Morris, Sproles, 286 U. S. 372, Alward v. Johnson

PRODUCT: Coney, Class F of motor, Binford

CARDINAL: 290, 94, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 168, 167, 679, 455, one, two, 252, 145, 170

DATE: 1933, November 17, 1933, December 4, 1933, 283 U. S. 553, 287 U. S. 251, 8511, 265 U. S. 30, 283 U. S. 183, 8530, 1925, 1928, 1238, 1930, 1068, 1100, 1327, 1931

ORG: U.S. Supreme Court, Coney, THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Syllabus, Court, supreme court, Smith v. Cahoon, S.C. 440, the Supreme Court of South Carolina, Railroad Commission, The Railroad Commission of, the Supreme Court, the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution, The supreme court, Continental Baking Co., Binford, Michigan Commission, Duke, Legislature, Knights of Pythias v. Meyer, American Railway Express Co., the Railroad Commission, Commission, Interstate Transit, Inc., Lindsey,, Reliance, Salt Fish, Shrimp, the District Court, The Court Page 290 U. S. 175, the Motor Transportation Division of the Commission

GPE: U.S., South Carolina, St. Louis, Arkansas, Id., pp

ORDINAL: third, First, Second, Third, first, second

PERCENT: 290 U. S. 173, 287 U. S. 265, 235 U. S. 350