Cox v. Texas
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE COURT OP CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. The facts are stated in the opinion. The exemption from its general provisions of wines produced from domestic grapes, while in the hands of producers or manufacturers, renders the law obnoxious to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Intoxicating liquors are recognized by the constitution and laws of Texas as legitimate articles of commerce.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE COURT OP CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. The facts are stated in the opinion. The exemption from its general provisions of wines produced from domestic grapes, while in the hands of producers or manufacturers, renders the law obnoxious to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Intoxicating liquors are recognized by the constitution and laws of Texas as legitimate articles of commerce. So long as state legislation recognizes intoxicants as articles of lawful consumption and commerce, the Federal courts must afford to…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holmes
These are two suits upon a statutory bond executed by the plaintiffs in error as principal and sureties. There were ver*449diets and judgments against the plaintiffs in error, whereupon motions were made for new trials, setting up that the act under which the bond was given was contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States as denying to persons within the jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. The motions were overruled, and an appeal was taken to the Court of Civil Appeals. That court affirmed the judgments below, 85 S. W. Rep. 1199; 85 S. W. Rep. 34, a…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Crowley v. ChristensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Kidd v. PearsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- American Sugar Refining Co. v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Bartemeyer v. IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Madden v. Kentucky Ex Rel. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Burley Tobacco Growers' Co-Operative Marketing Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928
- State v. Parker Distilling Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- Ex Parte TignerCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1939
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. Illinois Brick Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.