Heyman v. Hays
Citations
- 236 U.S. 178
- 35 S. Ct. 403
- 59 L. Ed. 527
- 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1747
Syllabus
<p>The rulings of this court concerning the operation of the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution rest upon the broad principle of the freedom of commerce between the States, and of the equal right of a citizen of one State to freely contract either to receive merchandise from, or to send merchandise into, another State. Am. Express Co. v. Iowa, 196 U. S. 133.</p> <p>The right to engage in interstate commerce is not the gift of a State; it cannot be regulated or restrained by a State, nor can a State exclude from its .limits a corporation engaged in such commerce. West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U. S. 229.</p> <p>The selling of liquor under a strictly mail-order business and the deliv- ■ ery within the State to a carrier for through shipment to another State to fill such orders in interstate commerce, is beyond the control of the State.</p> <p>Substance, and not form, controls in determining whether a particular transaction is one of interstate commerce; and. the mere method of delivery is a negligible circumstance if, in substantial effect, the transaction is such under the facts.</p> <p>The protection against imposition by the State of direct burdens upon the right to do interstate commerce is practical and substantial, and embraces those acts which are necessary to the complete-enjoyment of the right protected.</p> <p>The mere fact that a concern doing a strictly interstate business has goods on hand within the State capable of being used in intrastate commerce, and to which attention is given, does not take the business out of the protection of the commerce clause and allow the State to impose a privilege tax on such concern.</p> <p>Delivery to a carrier within the State for the sole purpose of through shipment to another State in fulfillment of a previous order from the latter state, is not, in a practical sense, the doing of business within the State so as to subject the business to a privilege tax; and sp held as to the privilege tax attempted to b
Judges: White
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
20 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court· 1941-03-17· cited 166×
- Memphis Natural Gas Co. v. StoneSupreme Court· 1948-06-21· cited 120×
- Carter v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 1944-01-31· cited 116×
- Ozark Pipe Line Corp. v. MonierSupreme Court· 1925-01-05· cited 103×
- Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Ford Motor Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1941-04-04· cited 29×
- National Labor Relations Board v. Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co.Ninth Circuit· 1937-07-31· cited 13×
- State v. Plantation Pipe Line CompanySupreme Court of Alabama· 1956-08-02· cited 13×
- Gambino v. JacksonWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1965-11-30· cited 10×
- St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. StrattonIllinois Supreme Court· 1933-10-21· cited 10×
- Kinnear & Gager Manufacturing Co. v. MinerSupreme Court of Vermont· 1916-01-07· cited 9×
- Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe Co. v. State Tax CommissionUtah Supreme Court· 1962-02-20· cited 6×
- American Distributing Co. v. Hayes Wheel Co.E.D. Michigan· 1918-03-23· cited 5×
- American Mills Co. v. DoyalCourt of Appeals of Georgia· 1933-01-07· cited 4×
- Missouri ex rel. Barrett v. Kansas Natural Gas Co.W.D. Missouri· 1922-06-30· cited 4×
- Central Trust Co. of New York v. Consumers' Light, Heat & Power Co.D. Kansas· 1922-06-15· cited 4×
- Thomas v. Hempt Bros.Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas· 1950-10-28· cited 1×
- Union Electric Co. v. Department of RevenueAppellate Court of Illinois· 1989-02-09· cited 1×
- No.Colorado Attorney General Reports· 1983-11-18
- Hiller v. CrenshawTennessee Supreme Court· 1916-04-15
- Federal Coal Co. v. United States Fuel Corp.Tennessee Supreme Court· 1922-12-15
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court· 1911-05-15· cited 174×
- W. W. Cargill Co. v. MinnesotaSupreme Court· 1901-03-05· cited 112×
- Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. LouisSupreme Court· 1883-03-18· cited 88×
- American Express Co. v. IowaSupreme Court· 1905-01-03· cited 83×
- New York Ex Rel. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. KnightSupreme Court· 1904-01-04· cited 82×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.