Legal Opinion
Pullman Co. v. Richardson
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided March 12, 1923No. 143-148, and 149PublishedCited by 62 opinions
1Opinion of the Court 1
261 U.S. 330 (1923)
PULLMAN COMPANY
v.
RICHARDSON, AS TREASURER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
HINES, AS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS, ET AL.
v.
RICHARDSON, AS TREASURER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Nos. 143-148, and 149.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued December 4, 5, 1922.
Decided March 12, 1923.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Mr. Cordenio A. Severance, with whom Mr. Gustavus A. Fernald and Mr. Burke Corbet were on the brief, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. U.S. Webb, Attorney General of the State of California, and Mr. Raymond Benjamin, for defendant in error, submitted.
2Opinion of the Court · DevanterJustice Van Devanter
These…
3Cases cited16 opinions
- Leloup v. Port of MobileSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Philadelphia & Southern Steamship Co. v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Attorney General of CommonwealthSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by62 opinions
- Miller Brothers Co. v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- J. D. Adams Manufacturing Co. v. StorenSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Minnesota v. BlasiusSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Missouri State Tax CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- East Ohio Gas Co. v. Tax Comm'n of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.