Legal Opinion

Jungst v. Baldridge

District Court, D. Idaho

Decided August 28, 1929No. 1403PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DIETRICH, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiffs are engaged in the business of butchering and dealing in meats at. Twin Falls and other points in Idaho. The-business, they allege, is purely intrastate,, and does not come within the provisions of the act of Congress known as The Packers, and Stockyards Aet of 1921 (7 USCA §§ 181. -229). By their complaint they challenge-the validity of an act passed by the Idaho-Legislature, approved March 11, 1929 (Laws-1929, c: 148), regulatory of the business of butchers and dealers in meats, particularly the meats of' cattle, sheep, and horses.

Clearly it is 4o be…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Munn v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Butchers' Benevolent Ass'n v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing & Slaughter-House Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1873
  3. Stafford v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  4. Armour & Co. v. North DakotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  5. Brazee v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1916

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Swift & Co. v. PetersonOregon Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Eachus v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1951
  3. Swift & Co. v. PetersonOregon Supreme Court · 1951

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API