United States Ex Rel. Attorney General of the United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
BRROR TO -THE CIRCUIT: COURT LpP THE' UNITED. STATES POR C; ;TIÍ®: EASTERN:,-DISTRICTr;.pE.:-PENNSYLVANIA. , ■ ; APPENDS PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP PENNSYLVANIA. ■ The facts which involve the constitutionality, and construe- ■ tion of the commodities- clause, of-the:Hepburn Net, § 1, c. 3591, act of June 29, 1906/ 34' Stat/■584, are stated: in the opinion.1 The question of the reasonableness of a stAthte-is' for- the legislature,…
Read the full summary
BRROR TO -THE CIRCUIT: COURT LpP THE' UNITED. STATES POR C; ;TIÍ®: EASTERN:,-DISTRICTr;.pE.:-PENNSYLVANIA. , ■ ; APPENDS PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP PENNSYLVANIA. ■ The facts which involve the constitutionality, and construe- ■ tion of the commodities- clause, of-the:Hepburn Net, § 1, c. 3591, act of June 29, 1906/ 34' Stat/■584, are stated: in the opinion.1 The question of the reasonableness of a stAthte-is' for- the legislature, but the clause in'question is.a reasdnábíé. exercise of the power of Congress.?' '' f j. If a statute pertains to a…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice White
We dismiss for the present a contention made by one of the corporations that it is not a railroad company within the meaning of that term as used in the statute, which we shall have occasion to consider, because it is merely a coal company whose transporting operations are but incidental to its mining operations. With this contention put aside, it is true to say, speaking in a general sense, that the corporations, parties to this record, by means of railroads owned and operated by them, were engaged in transporting coal from the anthracite coal fields in Pennsylvania to points of market for…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Armour Packing Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Pulllman's Palace Car Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Conley v. Mathieson Alkali WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by582 opinions
- Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Ring v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. St. CyrSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- United States v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 2019
- Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
577 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.