Swift & Co. v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[T]he distinctive feature of peddling is the concurrence of selling and delivering.”
• “[T]he distinctive feature of peddling is the concurrence of selling and delivering.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Steven Waters v. Reagan Farr, Commissioner of Revenue for the State of Tennessee
  Tennessee Supreme Court· 2009-07-24· cited 246×
• Holloway v. Putnam County
  Tennessee Supreme Court· 1976-02-09· cited 60×
• City of Memphis v. W. M. S. Co.
  Tennessee Supreme Court· 1959-03-17· cited 4×
• Davidson Estate v. Weeks
  Tennessee Supreme Court· 1934-05-31
• Murfreesboro Bread & Ice Cream Co. v. Town of McMinnville
  Tennessee Supreme Court· 1934-03-10

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Davis & Co. v. Mayor of Macon
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1879-09-15· cited 37×
• Briscoe v. McMillan
  Tennessee Supreme Court· 1906-09-15· cited 30×
• Ex parte Taylor
  Mississippi Supreme Court· 1880-10-15· cited 14×

Other cases named Swift & Co. v. State

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Swift & Co. v. State
  Court of Claims of Illinois· 1938-05-11