Legal Opinion
Mintz v. Baldwin
District Court, N.D. New York
Decided February 15, 1933PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAugustus N. Hand, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
The plaintiffs insist that the order of the New York Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets is invalid because it involves a regulation of slfipments in interstate commerce in a field which Congress has already occupied. The legislation which they regard as occupying the field comprises the act of February 2, 1903 (21 U. S. Code, §§ 120, 121 and 122 [21 USCA §§ 120-122]) and the Act of March 3,1905 (21 U. S. Code §§ 123, 124, 125 and 126 [21 USCA §§ 123-126]).
Section 1 of the act of 1903 (21 USCA § 120) authorizes and directs the Secretary of *703Agriculture to…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Savage v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. BondurantSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Railroad Co. v. HusenSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Reid v. ColoradoSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- McCullough v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Sims v. BaggettDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama · 1965
- Flax v. Kansas Turnpike AuthoritySupreme Court of Kansas · 1979
- Unified School District No. 503 v. McKinneySupreme Court of Kansas · 1984
- New v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1947
- Lucien Lelong, Inc. v. H. Mohr & Co.New York Supreme Court · 1938
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.