Add to ORKGThe plaintiff was engaged in business as a common carrier of goods by motor vehicle. He transported goods between the docks of Los Angeles harbor and points in and around Los Angeles, but all the goods which he carried were originally shipped in from or were consigned to destinations outside the State. His operations, however, were independent of the operations of connecting carriers. The California Railroad Commission ordered the plaintiff to cease operations until he secured a certificate of public convenience and necessity. Held, on review, that the plaintiff was engaged in interstate commerce, and that the Commission\u27s order was invalid. Langdon, J., wrote a dissenting opinion, concurred in by Waste, C. J., and Shenk, J. Meyers v. Ra...
The marvelous possibilities for collision between State and Nation involved in our dual form of gove...
The line between regulations of intrastate and interstate commerce is difficult to draw and hard to ...
Grace and Co. v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 8 N.Y.2d 103, 202 N.Y.S.2d 281 (1960)
The plaintiff was engaged in business as a common carrier of goods by motor vehicle. He transported ...
In conformity with the Texas statute regulating contract carriers, the plaintiffs applied for permit...
Chapter 236, Laws of Kansas, 1931, requires private motor carriers for hire in interstate commerce t...
Petitioner brought an action in an Arkansas state court to enjoin enforcement of a state statute whi...
The defendant, St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Company, maintained separate accommodations in ra...
On being refused a license, a carrier operating under the provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Ac...
A common carrier engaged in interstate commerce applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission for a ...
Much of the doubt and uncertainty concerning the power of the States to regulate the contract motor ...
Appellee, an Illinois corporation engaged in manufacturing and selling candy within the state of Ill...
The Union Stock Yard and Transit Company of Chicago performed the services of loading and unloading ...
Complainants instituted this suit to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission prohib...
A New York statute imposed a tax of two per cent on the gross receipts of all utilities doing busine...
The marvelous possibilities for collision between State and Nation involved in our dual form of gove...
The line between regulations of intrastate and interstate commerce is difficult to draw and hard to ...
Grace and Co. v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 8 N.Y.2d 103, 202 N.Y.S.2d 281 (1960)
The plaintiff was engaged in business as a common carrier of goods by motor vehicle. He transported ...
In conformity with the Texas statute regulating contract carriers, the plaintiffs applied for permit...
Chapter 236, Laws of Kansas, 1931, requires private motor carriers for hire in interstate commerce t...
Petitioner brought an action in an Arkansas state court to enjoin enforcement of a state statute whi...
The defendant, St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Company, maintained separate accommodations in ra...
On being refused a license, a carrier operating under the provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Ac...
A common carrier engaged in interstate commerce applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission for a ...
Much of the doubt and uncertainty concerning the power of the States to regulate the contract motor ...
Appellee, an Illinois corporation engaged in manufacturing and selling candy within the state of Ill...
The Union Stock Yard and Transit Company of Chicago performed the services of loading and unloading ...
Complainants instituted this suit to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission prohib...
A New York statute imposed a tax of two per cent on the gross receipts of all utilities doing busine...
The marvelous possibilities for collision between State and Nation involved in our dual form of gove...
The line between regulations of intrastate and interstate commerce is difficult to draw and hard to ...
Grace and Co. v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 8 N.Y.2d 103, 202 N.Y.S.2d 281 (1960)