Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Butler
Appellants, plaintiffs below, are engaged in the business of catching and canning shrimp for shipment and sale in interstate commerce. Appellees, defendants below, are public officers in Louisiana charged with the duty of enforcing Act No. 103, known as the “ Shrimp Act,” passed in July, 1926; so far as material here, it is printed in the margin. * Plaintiffs sued to enjoin enforcement of certain of its provisions on the ground, among others, that they violate the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The district judge granted a restraining order pending application for a temporary…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Pennsylvania v. West VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Geer v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. BondurantSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Minnesota v. BarberSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by177 opinions
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- City of Philadelphia v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Hughes v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Toomer v. WitsellSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
172 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.