NettetGeorge W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy, 267 U.S. 317 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the state statute under which the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) issued certificates of public convenience and necessity to common carriers engaged in interstate commerce violated the Commerce Clause of … NettetHe was usually among a silent majority voting in favor of government authority to sustain, for example, the national police power (e.g., hoke v. united states, 1913) and the sherman antitrust act (standard oil company v. united states, 1911); he dissented without opinion in houston, east & west texas railway co. v. united states (1914).
loc.gov
NettetHOKE v. UNITED STATES 227 U.S. 308 (1913) CAMINETTI v. UNITED STATES 242 U.S. 470 (1917) Opinions in champion v. ames (1903) and hipolite egg co. v. united states (1911) laid the foundation for a unanimous decision sustaining the mann act, which prohibited the interstate transportation of women for immoral purposes. NettetThere were ten special elections to the United States House of Representatives in 1933, to both the 72nd United States Congress and the 73rd United States Congress. 72nd United States Congress ... Hoke O'Kelley (Democratic) 1.7%; D. Talmadge Bowers (Independent) 1.0%; Arizona at-large: Lewis W. Douglas: Democratic safeway thiessen and webster
Hipolite Egg Company v. United States, No. 519 - vLex
Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308 (1913), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that held that the United States Congress could not regulate prostitution per se, which was strictly the province of the states. Congress could, however, regulate interstate travel for purposes of prostitution or other "immoral purposes." The case revolved around an offer to transport women from New Orleans to Beaumont, Texas for … Nettet11. mar. 2024 · Hence the Court’s decision in Hoke v. United States (1913), which upheld a law making it a crime to transport a woman across state lines “for immoral purposes” (a euphemism for prostitution). NettetThe Court thus upheld the taxing power as a weapon against drug abuse in united states v. doremus (1919) and the commerce power as a means of combating gambling, illicit sex, and other practices usually said to be reserved to the state police power, asin hoke v. united states (1913). they\\u0027d ng