Barrett v. City of New York
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP NEW YORK. The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution of certain ordinances of the City of New York as applied to the interstate business of express companies, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP NEW YORK. The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution of certain ordinances of the City of New York as applied to the interstate business of express companies, are stated in the opinion. There was no basis for separation because the various specific provisions upheld below cannot be regarded as regulations as to the usd of the streets. The various specific provisions upheld below, even if they could be regarded as regulations as to the use…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hughes
This suit was brought to restrain the enforcement against the Adams Express Company of a group of ordinances of the Board of Aldermen of the City of New York upon the ground that, as applied to that Company, these ordinances constitute an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce and deny to it the equal protection of the laws. The ordinances are contained in Chapter 7 of the Code of Ordinances adopted in the year 1906 as amended (Cosby’s Edition, 1911), and the material sections together with portions of the context are set forth in the margin; 1
The chapter relates to specified…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Adams Express Company v. CroningerSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- International Textbook Co. v. PiggSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Smith v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Crutcher v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1891
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by82 opinions
- McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Sprout v. South BendSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. DukeSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Shafer v. Farmers Grain Co. of EmbdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Sioux Remedy Co. v. CopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
77 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.