In Re Pinkney
Supreme Court of Kansas
Original Proceeding in Habeas Corpus. On May 12,1891, a complaint was made charging that the petitioners did, in Leavenworth county, on the same day, “unlawfully agree and combine together and enter into, and then and there were in a contract,'agreement and combination with each, and each of them with certain other persons and corporations, the names of which are now unknown to this affiant, which said agreement, contract and combination is and was designed and intended to…
Read the full summary
Original Proceeding in Habeas Corpus. On May 12,1891, a complaint was made charging that the petitioners did, in Leavenworth county, on the same day, “unlawfully agree and combine together and enter into, and then and there were in a contract,'agreement and combination with each, and each of them with certain other persons and corporations, the names of which are now unknown to this affiant, which said agreement, contract and combination is and was designed and intended to control the cost and rate of insurance within said state by threatening persons and affiant in the insurance business…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by The only question presented in behalf of the petitioners is the validity of what is known as the "antitrust law," so far as it relates to the business of insurance. (Laws of 1889, ch. 257.) The contention is, that the portion of the act pertaining to insurance is not clearly expressed in the title, as required by § 16, article 2, of the constitution, and is therefore void. The title is: "An act to declare unlawful trusts and combinations in restraint of trade and products, and to provide penalties therefor." Section 1 of that act embraces the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bowman v. CockrillSupreme Court of Kansas · 1870
- State v. BarrettSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
- Woodruff v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1880
- Philpin v. McCartySupreme Court of Kansas · 1880
- Board of Commissioners v. State ex rel. StockslagerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1887
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Marioneaux v. CutlerUtah Supreme Court · 1907
- Harrod v. Latham Mercantile & Commercial Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1908
- Roy v. Mutual Rice Co. of Louisiana, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1933
- Betz v. MaierCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1896
- State v. McClellanSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1923
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.